9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e job worker had been returned back under the job work challans - Held that:- On-going through the impugned order, no finding has been given either by the Asstt. Commissioner or by the Commissioner (Appeals) on this point, though precisely for making a finding on this point, that this matter had earlier been remanded. If the inputs had been sent under job work challans to the job workers for processing and the same had been returned back, even if after some delay, the cenvat credit would have to be allowed and as such, there was no provision for obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional Commissioner for sending cenvated inputs for job work. Since on the crucial point of return of the inputs after processing, there is no finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is Rs.3,96,270/-. The allegation of the Department is that no permission of the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner was obtained by the appellant for sending cenvated inputs to job workers, that no account of the materials sent for job work and its return was maintained and the bobbins made out of the Nylon Granules had infact not been received back within 180 days. On this basis, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for denying the above mentioned cenvat credit, its recovery along with interest and imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31.08.2005 by which he confirmed the above mentioned cenvat credit demand along with interest and imposed penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which cenvat credit had been availed, had been entered in their RG-23 Part-I register, that the inputs had been sent to the job workers under job work challans and the same had been returned, that without bobbins, the manufacture of transformers was not possible, that these pleas had been made before the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority, but the same have been ignored and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Ms. S. Bector, ld. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order and while reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) pleaded that since the appellant have not maintained any account of the inputs sent to the job worker, it is not possible to say as to whether the inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not returned back within 180 days, the credit will be debited, but if the same received after 180 days, he will take the credit again. In this case, the contention of the appellant is that they had been maintaining the records of the Nylon Granules being received by them in respect of which cenvat credit had been availed and record of sending the same to job workers for making bobbins and that the Nylon Granules sent to the job worker had been returned back under the job work challans. However, on-going through the impugned order, I find that absolutely no finding has been given either by the Asstt. Commissioner or by the Commissioner (Appeals) on this point, though precisely for making a finding on this point, that this matter had earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
