9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the audited balance sheet and produced Chartered Accountant’s certificate. However it clearly appears from the findings of the impugned order that the claim of the Appellant was not properly verified by both the lower authorities - thus, the matter required to be remanded to original Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL NO. E/2043/10 - ORDER No.A/88017/16/SMB - Dated:- 22-2-2016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Shri. Anant Mangrulkar, Manager(Excise) for the Appellants Shri. N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent (A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.PII/AV/149/2010 dated 26.08.2010 passed by the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epreciation thereon was claimed. Being aggrieved by the original order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals), which came to be rejected. Therefore the Appellant is before me. 3. Shri Anant Mangrulkar, Manager (Excise) appeared on behalf of the Appellant company and submits that though there was some confusion in the beginning in giving the statement by the appellant s representative and submitting the data of debit of Cenvat credit from the capital goods account but subsequently they submitted the correct data which was supported by the Chartered Accountant Certificate. According to which, the Appellant has debited entire Cenvat credit amount from the capital account while capitalising the goods during the y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on the part of the excise duty on which Cenvat credit was availed. In this regard, I observed that the department concluded the denial of Cenvat credit on the basis of initial statement of the representative of the Appellant and data submitted by them. However subsequently the Appellant strongly claimed that the amount of credit availed on capital goods and proposed to be denied, was not included in the capital goods account and no depreciation was claimed thereon. In this regard, the Appellant referred to the audited balance sheet and produced Chartered Accountant s certificate. However it clearly appears from the findings of the impugned order that the claim of the Appellant was not properly verified by both the lower authorities. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 10,033/- in 1997-98 and ₹ 6424/- in 2000-01. It was in this context that the appellants were requested during the personal hearing to again give the split up of the amount of ₹ 1426.32 lakhs yearwise with the value and the excise duty thereon separately, the ledger account for the above items and the CAs certificate confirming that for the year 2000-01 the depreciation claimed did not include the element of excise duty for which credit had been claimed form 1994-95 onwards. Despite the lapse of over a month the appellants have not come up with any documents to establish their contention that no depreciation has been claimed on the element of duty on which modvat/Cenvat had been claimed. Since the basis of the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
