9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d their sheet metal division to M/s Caparo. A demand notice was issued to them on 18.07.2011 alleging that they had availed irregular cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 17,41,586/- in as much as in the month of February, 2008, after sale of the sheet metal division to M/s Caparo, the Applicants were not in a possession of the said capital goods, therefore, balance 50% of the credit was not admissible to theme and accordingly, recoverable. The demand was confirmed by the Addl. Commissioner and penalty under Section 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was imposed. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Respondent preferred an Appeal before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals), on the basis of the evidences produced, reduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of their calculation, allowed the cenvat credit on capital goods of Rs. 11,77,897/-. Further, he has submitted that that the claim of the Revenue that there was a contradictory statement before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), is incorrect, inasmuch as they had advanced two fold submissions before the ld.Commissiner (Appeals) stating that most of the items used were tool bits, drills, insert, dashing wheels, spare, parts etc., hence, were exhaustible within 4 to 5 cycles of its use. Secondly, they have submitted that the non-sheet metal division was not sold to M/s Caparo, therefore, they are not required to reverse the cenvat credit availed in the month of February, 2008 which pertain to non-sheet metal division. In support of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded the admissibility of cenvat credit to the extent of Rs. 11,77,897/-. I find that the ld.Consultant for the Respondent has now placed a Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 18th March, 2015, wherein it is stated that the cenvat credit availed on capital goods by the Respondent in February, 2008 relating to their non-sheet metal division, which was not sold to M/s Caparo. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the said Certificate needs to be scrutinized by the adjudicating authority. Both sides agree that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for scrutiny of the said Certificate. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority about the admissibility o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
