2013 (7) TMI 339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ay in respect of the adjudged dues which include an amount of Rs.2,78,095/- denied as CENVAT credit to them for the period from July, 2009 to March, 2010. After hearing both sides, I have found this case fit for summary remand to the original authority. Hence, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal for final disposal. 2. The CENVAT credit in question was taken on structural materi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... report. On the basis of the Range Officer's verification report, the original authority held that the structural materials would neither qualify to be capital goods defined under Rule 2(a) nor to be inputs defined under Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It also relied on Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2010(253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB)]. In the result, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a verification report from the Range Officer behind the back of the assessee and relied on it to decide the case against them. When the appellate authority chose not to entertain the assessee's grievance of violation of natural justice, he was virtually encouraging breach of natural justice. In the circumstances, without further commenting on the conduct of the lower authorities, I set aside thei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X