9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. ORDER After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Rajesh Chhibber, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri B.B. Sharma, ld. Departmental Representative appearing for Revenue, I find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture as well as repair of transformers and were availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on the transformer oil. As per Revenue, since the repair of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of demands on the said count was not justified inasmuch as there was no proposal in the show cause notice to do so. As such, in the absence of the same, the original adjudicating authority wrongly confirmed the said demand. Though this issue was raised before the Commissioner (Appeals), but he has not considered the same. Inasmuch as the Commissioner (Appeals) has already remanded the matter to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contest is to imposition of penalty on the said ground. Inasmuch as return of the goods from the job worker's factory is not in the hands of the principal manufacturer and inasmuch as the entire transactions were reflected in the statutory records, I agree with the ld. Advocate that there cannot be held to be any mala fide so as to invite penal action. Accordingly, the penalty imposition upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above submissions, I find that the sole ground for denial of credit is non-appearance of the signature of the input supplier. The said defect is rectifiable defect and in the absence of any allegations that the appellants have not received the inputs, I do not find any justification for denial of credit on the above technical and procedural aspect. Accordingly, confirmation of demand on the said c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
