9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job workers. This issue has already been discussed and requires no further reiteration that there is no general rule about the point whether procedural lapse, if any, could contribute to denial of a substantial benefit. In the present case when the matter was remanded for a third time adjudication, it is expected on the part of the Original Authority to conduct a cross verification of other material evidence like usage of bobbins by the appellant, documents, if any, available at the job workers side to corroborate the job work and return of goods etc. A one line finding to the effect that party failed to produce record hence he is denying Cenvat credit is not legally sustainable. All the records available in the factory premises have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment entertained a view that the nylon granules sent to job workers under the cover of private challans have not been duly received back as molding of bobbins and the appellant did not maintain proper records. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them which concluded in an order dated 31/8/2005 confirming a recovery of Cenvat credit of ₹ 3,96,270/- and imposing penalty of an equivalent amount on the appellant. On appeal the learned Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh consideration with certain directions to check up the receipt of bobbins manufactured by the job workers back to the appellants unit and their usage in further manufacture by the appellant. The matter was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) Whether the Cenvat credit availed nylon granules had been sent to the job workers under job work challans ; and (c) Whether the nylon granules sent to the job workers had been received back by the appellant, even if, after 180 days . 3. The Tribunal observed that if the nylon granules had been received back the Cenvat credit has to be allowed. A perusal of the impugned orders by the lower Authorities clearly indicate that no attempt has been made to answer with clarity point no. (b) and (c). For point No. (a) it has been admitted that the appellant did maintain proper records of RG-23 Pt. I and Pt. II account. Regarding the point whether Cenvat credit availed nylon granules had been sent to the job worker under job work c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neral rule about the point whether procedural lapse, if any, could contribute to denial of a substantial benefit. The matter has to be looked into on a case to case basis depending upon the available evidence to collaborate a factual assertion. In the present case when the matter was remanded for a third time adjudication, it is expected on the part of the Original Authority to conduct a cross verification of other material evidence like usage of bobbins by the appellant, documents, if any, available at the job workers side to corroborate the job work and return of goods etc. A one line finding to the effect that party failed to produce record hence he is denying Cenvat credit is not legally sustainable. All the records available in the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
