9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority about the admissibility of cenvat credit of ₹ 11,77,897/- on the capital goods availed in the month of February, 2008 in the light of the above certificate. After examination of the eligibility of the cenvat credit, the adjudicating authority would decide the other issues raised by the Revenue in their Appeal. - Appeal disposed of. - Ex Appeal No. 70588/13 & CO-76621/14 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2015 - D M Misra, Member (J) For the Petitioner : Shri S P Pal, Appraiser (AR For the Respondent : Shri Dinesh Jha, Consultant ORDER Per D M Misra This is an Appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.57/JSR/2013 dated 01.03.2013 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not taken into consideration the contradictory submissions advanced by the assesse-Respondent, inasmuch as they claimed before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the non-sheet metal business was never transferred to M/s Caparo and the credit availed on the capital goods, relate to tool bits, drills, insert, dashing wheels etc. which consumed after 4 to 5 cycles of production. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue, also argues that this finding arrived at by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), is un-tenable in law and the Order of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly be set aside. 5. The ld.Consultant for the Respondent, submits that during the course of hearing before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), they have submitted a revised calculation sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 11,77,897/-, whereas the present Certificate produced by the ld.Consultant for the Respondent, was of ₹ 12,07,565/-. He submits that since the cenvat credit figures appearing in the Commissioner's (Appeals) Order, are different, therefore, the Chartered Engineer's Certificate needs to be scrutinized by the adjudicating authority on the eligibility of cenvat credit to the extent of ₹ 11,77,897/-, since the Respondent had not disputed the differential cenvat credit confirmed i.e.Rs. 17,41,586/- modified by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) to ₹ 11,77,896/-. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the cenvat credit on capital goods to the extent of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
