9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent ORDER The appeal is against the order dated 17.09.2010 of Commissioner (A) Delhi - II. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period 1993-94 and this is second round of litigation before the Tribunal. Briefly stated there are two issues involved in the decision that: a) Eligibility of the appellant for availing MODVAT credit on the inputs used in the manufacture and b) Liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... office on 24.07.2008 to file reply to the notice. The appellant accordingly filed the reply with the Office of Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-II, on 23.09.2008. However, the Original Adjudicating Authority, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division 8 Delhi - II proceeded to adjudicate the case afresh. But no reference was made to the reply submitted by the appellant. However, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant commissioner no effort was taken by the appellant to defend their case. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 7. The total demand of about Rs. 53 lakhs was confirmed against the appellant on 2 issues. We note, admittedly, the defense submission by the appellant were not on record before the Original Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, no detailed examination of their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to examine the issue afresh, within two months, as the issue is more than two decades old. We also direct the appellant not to delay the proceedings further and to file all their submission with supporting evidence directly before the Adjudicating Authority and appear on the date fixed for personal hearing without seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
