9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst Order-in-Appeal No. 75/2004 & 76/2004 both dated 25.8.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. As the common issue involved, the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order set aside two separate Orders-in-Original No. 04/2004 and 06/2004 both dated 25.2.2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry I Division. 2. The learned AR fair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of plastic moulded furniture. By show-cause notice dated 7.6.2002, it has been proposed to deny the CENVAT credit of Rs.10,85,366/- paid on the rejected and returned goods to the factory for the purpose of re-making and re-conditioning during the period July 2001 to February 2002 under Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise (No.2), Rules, 2001. The original authority confirmed the demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Revenue was not aggrieved with the adjudication order as no appeal was filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals). So, the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal would be restricted to the extent of demand of Rs.85,027/- along with interest and penalty in the order, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). We find from the order of the original authority that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers who had returned the goods. 5. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order on the ground that once the returned goods and related documents have been correlated and there is no dispute about the identity of the goods, the allegations in the show-cause notice stands resolved. We find that the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.85,027/- after considering the verificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
