9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of CENVAT credit availed by them on the inputs, which were used in the manufacture of said exported goods during the period August to September 2008. The adjudicating authority observed that earlier adjudication order has not given findings on various issues. In my considered view, the findings of the adjudicating authority has acted as an appellate authority against earlier adjudication order, which is not permissible under the law. It is clear from the records that the appellant had submitted all the documents and the statements before the lower authorities, which were not looked into by the authorities below. So, the findings of the lower authorities cannot sustain. The adjudicating authority is required to examine the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /1717/2009 before the Tribunal against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which is listed today. In the mean time, a show cause notice dated 08.10.2009 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise to show cause as to why the amount so refunded erroneously should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest. By adjudication order dated 30.7.2010, the Assistant Commissioner, in terms of the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and confirmed the demand of ₹ 47,43,302/- along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and Appeal No. E/92/2011, being l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low have not appreciated the documents and passed the order without considering their records. 6. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the appellant have not produced the documents in respect of utilisation of inputs in the manufacture of exported goods. He reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find from the impugned order that Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant has exported the goods and they are entitled for the refund of the CENVAT credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of export goods but for the said purpose, they have to establish the quantity gone into the manufacture of export goods and the CENVAT c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
