9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner with a direction to consider the documents and the worksheets and the policy of the company with regard to partial write off - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/28537/2013-SM - Final Order No. 21215/2016 - Dated:- 21-11-2016 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri L.S. Karthikeyan, Advocate - For the Appellant Smt Ezhil Mathi, AR - For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 13.09.2013 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cement and Cement Clinker falling under Chapter Heading 25232940 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the legal provisions as well as documentary evidence produced by the appellant in support of his submissions. He further submitted that the provision of Rule 3(5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules is not attracted in the present case. He further submitted that the provisions relating to reversal of credit on the value of inputs written off fully was introduced for the first time in the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 by way of insertion of Rule 3(5B) w.e.f. 11.05.2007. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rule 3(5B). He further submitted that in reply to the show-cause notice the appellants have filed the policy of the company along with worksheets and other documents to prove that they have made partial provisions. But both the parties below have not examined the documentary evidence. The appellant has also produced these documents in the present appeal also. But in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the appellants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the provision is made only for partial value of goods for write off. In view of this finding returned by the Commissioner, I am of the opinion that this case needs to be remanded back to the learned Commissioner with a direction to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
