9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same to the appellant. In such situation, the appellant is not at fault for not producing the same. On careful consideration of the submissions of both the sides, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and I set aside the same - Decided in favour of assessee. - APPEAL No. E/1472/10-Mum - - - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) For the Respondent : Shri R.K. Maji, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. AGS (98)59/2010 dated 3.6.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad, vide which the appellant has been denied the cenvat credit on the xerox copy of the bill of entry. 2. Briefly the facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 3.6.2010 upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority. Now the appellant is before this Tribunal by this appeal. 3. The counsel for the appellant has not appeared but has filed written submissions. I have heard the learned AR and perused the written submissions of the appellant. 4. The appellant has submitted in their written submissions that the impugned order being devoid of reasons has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the submissions of the appellant on merits as well as on limitation and consequently the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appellant further stated in their written submissions that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004, xerox copy is not a proper document to avail cenvat credit. He has relied upon the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (i) CCE, Meerut-I vs. Tayal Steel Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (286) ELT 248 (T.-Del.); (ii) CNC India Tools Service (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2014 (314) ELT 221 (T.-Bang.); (iii) CCE, Surat vs. Survoday Blending (P) Ltd. reported in 2012 (278) ELT 373 (T.-Ahmd.). 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and have gone through the judgments cited by both the parties. After going through the judgments cited by the appellant, I am of the considered view that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the law cited by the appellant and I am o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
