9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the Adjudicating Authority - the case may be decided without going into the case laws as cited by the ld.Counsel and only on the basis as to whether the appellant had undertaken the process as claimed by the ld.Counsel. So, it is appropriate that the appellant should be given an opportunity to establish the process in any manner before the Adjudicating Authority in the interest of justice - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/75358-75360/16 - FO/A/75962-75964/2017 - Dated:- 31-5-2017 - Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member(Judicial) And Shri Devender Singh, Member(Technical) Shri N.K.Choudhary, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.Dasgupta, DC(AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per: Shri P. K. Choudhary Briefly stated the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of duty. The ld.Advocate strongly argued that department did not make any investigation in respect of the said process undertaken by the Bardhaman unit. The appellant had taken the credit of duty paid on the goods received from their Durgapur unit and subsequently cleared the same after value addition on payment of Central Excise duty, which is well within the provisions of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is the case of the appellant that when the duty has been paid on the clearance of the goods, there should not be any difficulty and dispute in respect of availment and admissibility of credit. In support of his submissions he relied on the following decisions of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat.:- (a) Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the appellant is liable for payment of the said credit availed irregularly to the tune of ₹ 3,56,74,236/- along with interest and penalty. The appellant did not submit any documentary evidence as to what is the yardstick to understand that the goods manufactured at their Durgapur unit were having excess carbon and hence not marketable. The ld.AR also argued that the appellant did not produce any document that they had taken permission from the Commissioner in terms of Rule 16(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We find that the main contention of the ld.Counsel is that the appellant had taken a process and the department did not make any investigation in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. It is apparent that there is a contradiction between the contention of the appellant and the finding of the Adjudicating Authority. In our considered view, the case may be decided without going into the case laws as cited by the ld.Counsel and only on the basis as to whether the appellant had undertaken the process as claimed by the ld.Counsel. So, it is appropriate that the appellant should be given an opportunity to establish the process in any manner before the Adjudicating Authority in the interest of justice. 8. In view of the above discussion, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh on the basis of the above observation in accordance with law. Needless to mention a reasonable opportunity of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
