9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reasons either for allowing the waiver or refusal to waiver on the materials as well as the pleadings made before it. Mere quoting the provision does not absolve the Tribunal from its responsibility and obligation to record the reasons on each and every issue that has been raised before it. Since this court finds that the application seeking waiver is disposed of solely on the ground that the availability of CENVAT credit on the basis of the documents not prescribed under sub-rule (1) of rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 this court, therefore, finds that the said order suffers from illegality and/or infirmity. - matter remanded back for reconsideration - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P. No. 1195 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt finds that the CESTAT had disposed of the said application seeking waiver of the deposit of duty on the plea that the CENVAT credit claims by the petitioner on the basis of the document which is not prescribed. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the technicality should not stand in the way of dispensation of justice, if the other materials and documents available with the authorities justify the credit to be availed of by the assessee and placed reliance upon judgments of the Tribunal at Delhi in case of Cosmos Casting India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in [2011] 23 STR 144 and in case of Wichitra Auto Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Chennai-II reported in [2012] 284 ELT 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhered to and followed. But it is equally true that technicalities should not stand in the way of dispensation of the justice if the necessary ingredients required for availing of such credit under the prescribed forms are otherwise available. It cannot be decipher either from the findings recorded by the CESTAT nor from the Department side that the documents on which the CENVAT Credit was availed is not sufficient to grant such credit. Though the judgments rendered by the Tribunal does not bind this court but the same may have persuasive value. The Tribunal in this aspect, as it appears from the aforesaid reports, consistently held that if the particulars are contained in the documents as required to be done by proviso to sub-rule (2) of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
