9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that these items were not used in or in relation to the fabrication of the capital goods, but used as structures. We find from the impugned Order that the ld. Commissioner s finding is not supported by any verification on the claim of the Appellant advanced in their reply to the Notice regarding its use in the fabrication of capital goods. Both sides agree that in similar cases of other units of the Appellant, necessary verifications were carried out by the field formation, and consequently, on the basis of such verification, findings were recorded. However, we find that in the present case, the Department had not verified the claim of the Appellant - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - APPEAL NO.E/A/259/2010 - O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show cause notice was issued to them invoking extended period of limitation, alleging that as the said items are classifiable under Chapter No.72 of CETA, 1985, hence, do not qualify to be called as capital goods , as defined under Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; accordingly no CENVAT Credit would be admissible on such items. In response to the said show cause notice, they had filed a detailed reply, wherein they furnished detailed use of such Angles, Channels, Beams etc. in the manufacture/fabrication of plant and machinery/capital goods inside the factory. The ld. Commissioner, though recorded it at paras:3.7 3.8 of the impugned Order, however, without recording a specific finding on the use of such materials, erroneou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. He also accepts that in Applicants own cases relating to other units, verifications were carried out by the field formations and necessary findings had been recorded on the basis of verification report, while adjudicating the demand notice. He has no objection in remanding the case to the ld. Commissioner for verification of the facts as claimed by the Applicant that these items were used in the fabrication of capital goods and not structures . 4. In his rejoinder, ld. Advocate for the Applicant fairly submits that he has no objection for verification of their claim about use of such items in the fabrication of the capital goods in the factory. Further, he submits that even though they have not submitted a Chartered Engineers Certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in relation to the fabrication of the capital goods, but used as structures. We find from the impugned Order that the ld. Commissioners finding is not supported by any verification on the claim of the Appellant advanced in their reply to the Notice regarding its use in the fabrication of capital goods. Both sides agree that in similar cases of other units of the Appellant, necessary verifications were carried out by the field formation, and consequently, on the basis of such verification, findings were recorded. However, we find that in the present case, the Department had not verified the claim of the Appellant. Therefore, it is a fit case for remitting the matter to the ld. Commissioner for deciding the issue afresh. Needless to mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
