9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 22.12.2015 of Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron, H.B. Wire, Ferro Alloys, etc., are liable to central excise duty. They were also availing credit on various inputs and capital goods in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Proceedings were initiated against them for demand and recovery of cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawings, designs and various detailed supporting charts as per Chartered Engineers certificate were produced before the Appellate authority and not before the Original Authority. The impugned order has not been challenged on merits. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that as can be seen from the original order they have produced drawing layout, deployment of material handling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and manufacture has not been questioned with any amount of corroboration by the Revenue to controvert the submissions made by the respondent before the lower authorities. The Original Authority as well as in the grounds of appeal, observation has been made regarding the Chartered Engineers certificate being not quantitatively validated. Though it is not clear as to the nature of such validation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d evidence for a finding. Seeking additional information or clarification on evidences on record to facilitate the proper finding cannot be apparently barred by the above mentioned rule. There is also no allegation that the new set of evidences have been submitted by the respondent which came into existence after the said case was decided by the Original Authority. I find no substantial ground in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
