9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority and therefore the benefit of 14 invoices to the time of was not allowed to the appellant - Held that: - verification of 14 invoices which were not considered at the time of second round of remand. In view thereof, remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verifying 14 invoices and to give the benefit of credit - appeal allowed by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availing the SSI benefit. After adjudication vide Order-in-Original dt. 28/11/1997, the original authority confirmed the demand but did not extend the benefit of net duty demand in respect of 59 copies of invoices which were under dispute. The appellants filed appeal before the CESTAT and vide Final Order No.1765 1766 of 2000 dt. 08/12/2000, the Tribunal held that the appellant is eligible for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 invoices could not be placed for consideration of the benefit before the adjudicating authority and therefore the benefit of 14 invoices to the time of was not allowed to the appellant. The appellant Ms thus before the Tribunal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri K. Nagaraj Rao submitted that 59 invoices were part of the show-cause notice and they were very well within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation of the 14 invoices. The learned AR also pointed out that the Tribunal has already held that the appellant is not eligible for SSI benefit for the year 1996-97. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by either side, find that the issue is limited to the verification of 14 invoices which were not considered at the time of second round of remand. In view thereof, remand the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
