9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentative for the Revenue. 2. This Appeal is filed against OIO-28-AC-DEM-2011-12-SILVASSA, 30/11/2011, passed by Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Vapi. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Texturised Yarn falling under Chapter 54 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellants, during the period November 2005 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants could not establish that the rejected POY had been received in the factory and subjected to process for rectification. In support, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue took me through the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) particularly Para 8 of the impugned order. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue placed a chart referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant, as and when hearing notice was issued to them, therefore the same is taken up for disposal. I find that the Appellant has availed CENVAT Credit on the finished goods claimed to have been rejected and received for reprocessing in their unit during the relevant period, that is, November 2005 to July 2006. The authorities below have analysed the relevant invoices and other e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the charges of non-receipt by adducing sufficient evidences. 6. In the result, in my view, the Appellants are not eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on the invoices under which the goods initially cleared and claimed to have been received by them in their factory for reprocessing. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
