9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g output service. Therefore, appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on these cables either as capital goods or input as per cenvat credit rules 2004. - credit allowed. Whether matter can be remanded back for verification of the documents pertaining to input services credit availed by the appellant or not? - Held that: - As the appellant has produced the acknowledgment for submission of documents pertaining to input services before Ld Commissioner (A) and the same has not been considered by the Ld. Commissioner (A) while passing the impugned order. In that circumstances, the matter needs examination of the documents produced by the appellant - matter on remand. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST/52156/2016-ST(SM) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ld. Commissioner (A) while passing the impugned order, therefore, matter be remanded back for verification purpose. 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR oppose the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that as appellant has claimed cenvat credit on cable as capital goods and cable does not fall under the definition of capital goods under Rule 2A of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, therefore, appellant is not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on cable. He further submits that as appellant did not produce the necessary documents pertaining to input service credit as prescribed under Rule 9 of the Cenvat credit Rules 2004 in time before the Commissioner (A) therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Heard both the sides and con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived by them. I also observe that there has been a difference of opinion within the Tribunal as to whether a narrower interpretation should be placed on the language of the Rule 57Q or a broader view keeping in view the intention of the legislature and the Modvat scheme as a whole would be more appropriate. In so far as the present case is concerned, I feel that since there was no dispute between the parties on this point that all other essential aspects of Modvat scheme have already been duly taken care of and therefore, it is apparent that Modvat benefit was in any case required to be allowed, it is immaterial for the purpose of this case whether the same is allowed under Rule 57Q or Rule 57A an in either case it does not affect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
