9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Yogesh Agarwal, Authorized Representative (DR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : B. Ravichandran, Member (T)]. - The present appeal is against order dated 22-9-2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi-II. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of colour television sets liable to Central Excise duty and were also availing Cenvat credit. The dispute in the present appeal relates to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ards irregularity availed credit on such excess payment. Penalty of equivalent amount was also imposed. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order upheld the original order. 2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We note that the Original Authority decided the case second time based on a remand direction of Commissioner (Appeals). The remand was to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that certain debit notes were issued later which resulted in the presumption that the duty actually payable on the inputs by the suppliers are lesser than what is paid by the appellant. Hence, the credit taken by the appellants was not legally correct. We find even the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant did not submit proof that the suppliers did not take any refund. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erify the facts and pass fresh orders. If there is no evidence forthcoming regarding refund claim filed/sanctioned at the supplier's end, the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant cannot be denied or varied in the absence of any other grounds. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
