9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers were entered into factory and the description of the same had been duly recorded in the input records. In that event, Commissioner (Appeals) should have given opportunity to the appellant to produce copies of the transport documents. Since, such opportunity was not given by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) before holding that the appellants did not submit the transport documents, he has violated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Customs (Appeals), Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were issued with a Show Cause Notice dated 29/09/2008 proposing recovery of Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 93,490/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The allegations were that the appellants received invoices from, M/s M.K. Steels, Kolkata and M/s K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, though, the goods were not transported, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 9 of his impugned order observed that the appellants did not submit the transport documents for transportation of goods to their factory. He, further, brought to my notice that at Page 5 of the impugned order in Para 5 Sub-para (iii), it was stated before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the inputs carried by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. Since, such opportunity was not given by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) before holding that the appellants did not submit the transport documents, he has violated observance of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for De-novo Adjudication of impugned Order-in-Appeal by setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 26/11/2009. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
