9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner. Shri Nishant Mishra, Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER We have heard Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi for the appellant-department. Sri Nishant Mishra appears for the respondent-assessee. 2. This Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law :- "(a) Whether inputs damaged in fire could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, Central Excise Div. III, Ghaziabad, dropped the demand to the tune of Rs. 66,37,590/- and 86,49,445.86. 4. The Department filed the appeals on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has worked out the amount of Modvat credit on the basis of insurance claim filed by the respondent, without mentioning as to the admissibility/correctness of the same; the Adjudicating Authority had accepted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue simply pleaded that the demand was dropped without any verification. The Tribunal further found that the plea was raised, without any evidence to rebut the findings of fact given by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We do not find any error of facts or in law in the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the Adjudicating Authority had taken into consideration all the discrepancies pointed out b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, was dropped. On the question No. (b), we find that the Tribunal, after going into the merits of the matter, had found that the appeal was dismissed after finding that the Adjudicating Authority has considered all the issues, and that the Revenue was raising vague pleas before the Appellate Authority. 8. The findings of the Adjudicating Authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
