9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary by physical inspection of the plant and machineries involved and a finding given thereafter. - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/41470/2013-DB - - - Dated:- 23-1-2014 - Pradip Kumar Das Versus Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr Vipin Kumar Jain, Adv. and Mr Vishal Agarwal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr M Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) PER : Mathew John After hearing both sides, we found that the adjudication order does not have clarity on facts required for taking a properly informed decision either on stay petition or for final disposal of the appeal on merits by a reasoned order of the Tribunal. It is also seen that huge amount of ₹ 9.62 crores is involved in this appeal. So granting stay and keeping thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or which activities as mentioned above were under taken. They made submissions with reference to each items of plant and machinery in respect of which such activities were carried out by listing them under various heads of machineries in replies to the thirteen SCNs which were adjudicated by the impugned order. One of the replies dated 24-11-2005 in reply to SCN dated 28-042005 was taken as an example to demonstrate that goods were listed under headings from (a) to (y) and the use of items on which credit was taken was explained. However, the adjudicating authority has not examined the use for each of the above items with reference to the machinery in question. But he has given a finding in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the impugned order in a broa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gues that such finding is not consistent with the law laid down in various decisions and, therefore, the present order is not maintainable. In this context, he further relies on the following decisions:- (i) Indian Cements Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2013-TIOL-1649-CESTAT-MAD. (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Rajasthan Spinning Mills reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T.481(SC) and a few other decisions. Therefore, he submits that this case should be remanded back for finding on facts, that is to say the actual use of the items and then to decide on eligibility to credit based on the Rules and the various decisions of Courts and the Tribunal. 7. Opposing the prayer, the learned Authorized Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the SCN are prima facie cases of fabrication of parts of plant and machinery. (We make it clear no final finding is being given in respect of these items). So we see merit in the argument of appellant that the matter needs re-examination. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded with a direction that a detailed finding with reference to use of the items in respect of capital goods as specified by the appellant should be ascertained with reference to records and if necessary by physical inspection of the plant and machineries involved and a finding given thereafter. 10. The appellant also should co-operate for such verification and also provide information in respect of each item as indicated in the reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
