9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal authority. It was before the appellate authority for the first time that the respondent produced photographs in support of the above plea. There is nothing in the impugned order to indicate that the appellate authority inspected the respondent’s factory to check the veracity of the claim before it. There is nothing to indicate that the photographs were cross-checked with any other material, nor was the photographer examined to ascertain the veracity of the party’s claim. It is unfortunate that a few photographs produced by the party for the first time before the Commissioner(Appeals) were taken in face value and a decision rendered in favour of the party. When the Commissioner(Appeals) observed that it was within the power of the orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15(1) of the CCR, 2004. In their reply to the show-cause notice, the respondent, inter alia, submitted thus: 3. We would respectfully submit that there is no embargo for utilizing credit of duty paid on such inputs like MS plates, MS angles, MS beams, MS joists, MS channels and HRSS plates which are used for positioning the machinery and for supporting ancillary and/or auxiliary equipment/machinery. These goods are qualified in the nature of components, spares and accessories of goods specified at (i) and (ii). However, in their written submissions filed with the adjudicating authority, the respondent took a contrary stand by submitting as follows:- 3. The notice submit that they have taken credit on purchased goods (angles, channels ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement, which reads thus: Further, the appellant has also produced photographs showing the usage in the fabrication of the chimneys etc. using the same before me. 3. I am at a loss to understand as to how, on the basis of a few photographs, it could be determined that MS angles, plates etc. were used in the fabrication of the objects photographed. The relevant observations of the learned Commissioner(Appeals) do not stand to reason at all, nor have I found any justification for the Commissioner(Appeals) to have observed that it was very much within the means of the adjudicating authority to verify the usage of the items before passing the order. In their reply to the show-cause notice, the party had clearly pleaded that the structur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty s claim. It is unfortunate that a few photographs produced by the party for the first time before the Commissioner(Appeals) were taken in face value and a decision rendered in favour of the party. When the Commissioner(Appeals) observed that it was within the power of the original authority to verify the usage of the items, he was probably oblivious of the fact that the usage claimed by them in the reply submitted by the party was accepted by the original authority and the fact that no photographs were produced by the party before the original authority to support their alternative stand. 5. By all means, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly and this appeal of the Department is allowed. (Pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
