9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of claims on facts and deciding afresh on the legal issues raised - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/S/40489/2013 and E/40690/2013 - FINAL ORDER NO.40288/2013 - Dated:- 11-7-2013 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri J.V. Niranjan, Adv., For the Respondent : Shri P. Arul, Supdt. (AR), JUDGEMENT Per: Shri Mathew John After hearing both sides for sometime, we came to the view that the matter needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority and therefore after allowing the stay petition, we took up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both sides. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of Load Cells used in e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital goods were fully written off. He invited our attention to the amendment made in the said sub-rule vide Notification No. 3/2011-CE (N.T.) dated 01.03.2011, according to which there is a requirement to reverse Cenvat credit even when inputs or capital goods are partially written off. His contention is that prior to 01.03.11 there was no need to reverse Cenvat credit in situations where value was only partially written of, which is predominant nature of the dispute in the present appeal. He accepts that during the period appellant had fully written off inputs valued Rs. 10,68,855/-. 5. In respect of work in progress, his contention is that Rule 3 (5B) does not at all mention material issued for work in progress. He further submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the date of hearing. Prima facie he is of the view that this certificate could not be accepted as evidence at this stage. He also says that the principle of reversal in respect of inputs should apply in respect of material issued for work in progress also. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We take note of the contention of the appellant that the goods have been used in the manufacture of excisable goods, subsequent to issue of impugned order. We also see force in the argument that during the relevant time rules did not require reversal of credit when value of inputs was only partially written off. In respect of work in progress also we see merit in the argument of the appellant because the goods are use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
