9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to deny the credit taken on MS items. The appellants reversed the credit pursuant to a letter issued by Range Officer. The same was reversed under protest and thereafter they filed a refund claim. A show-cause notice was then issued proposing to reject the refund claim. It is seen that appellants did not file any reply to this show-cause notice, explaining the use of MS items. The adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /10/2009 directed the appellants to pay an amount of ₹ 10,80,843/- as the credit wrongly availed on structural items treating them as capital goods. In obedience to the direction, the appellants reversed the credit under protest and informed the reversal to department. It is submitted that except a letter from the Range Officer, the appellants were not issued any show-cause notice alleging w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund passed by primary authority. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. The learned consultant Shri Dwarakanath appearing for the appellants submitted that the MS items were used for fabrication of parts / components / accessories of capital goods and credit is admissible. That the availment of credit was not objected to by the department as they have not issued any sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter they filed a refund claim. A show-cause notice was then issued proposing to reject the refund claim. It is seen that appellants did not file any reply to this show-cause notice, explaining the use of MS items. The adjudicating authority is seen to have passed the order-in-original that credit is not admissible basing on available records. In such a situation, I am of the view that it is a fit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
