9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the credit of ₹ 6,10,580/- taken by them was therefore, not admissible - Held that: - the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings on some of the substantive grounds raised by the appellant and summarised in Para 3 (2), 3(3), 3(4) and Para 3(7) of impugned order. The first appellate should have given his findings on the averments in these paragraphs and whether that has any im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 2,01,392/- and education cess of ₹ 4,028/- on the basis of said invoice. They further availed credit of ₹ 5,98,608/- and education cess of ₹ 11,912/- on the strength of the supplementary invoice No.9949 dated 27.3.2006 issued by M/s.Auto Ignition Ltd. for the duty paid on design and development charges. The Revenue felt that the design and development charges for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessable value. The appellant have availed the credit validly on the basis of invoice, which is in order. The appellant is recipient of the capital goods and the authorities at the end of the recipient cannot re-determine the entitlement of the credit. He also stated that there is no provision in any Central Excise law requiring the manufacturer to submit any information or argument to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds in support of their appeal before the First Appellate Authority. These grounds are listed in Para 3(1) to 3(9) of the impugned order. I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings on some of the substantive grounds raised by the appellant and summarised in Para 3 (2), 3(3), 3(4) and Para 3(7) of impugned order. The first appellate should have given his findings on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
