9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent (s) ORDER Per: Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Commercial Motor Vehicles/Chassis, Cars and parts thereof etc. In the denovo adjudication, the Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax disallowed Cenvat Credit of ₹ 2,66,221/-, ₹ 1,41,890/- and ₹ 1,02,084/-. The appellant filed this appeal against the said order. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal record. 3. I find that the Adjudicating Authority had taken up the denovo adjudication in terms of the Tribunal Order No.A614-615/Kol/2010 dated 19.10.2010. The finding of the Tribunal in respect of demand of ₹ 2,66,221/- is as under: 8. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit was taken within a period of 180 days. I find that the Adjudicating Authority had examined this issue and observed as:- From records of the case, I find that inputs sent during the period August '99 to September 99, under the cover of 39 challans (prescribed under rule 57(4) ibid were not received by TML within 180 days. So, as per provision contained in rule 57F(11) ibid, the above notice dated 02.03.2000, as detailed in Annexure-XI to the show cause notice, proposed denial of MODVAT credits attributable to such inputs, which is proper. According the Original order dated 31.12.2004 has properly denied / disallowed credits amounting to ₹ 2,66,221/- in respect of these inputs. Further, when these inputs, after the lapse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 2,66,221/- liable to be disallowed and to be demanded. 5. I find that the Adjudicating Authority had taken up the denovo adjudication as per the direction of the Tribunal. The appellant failed to demonstrate before the Adjudicating Authority that the goods were returned back within 180 days from the date of removal of the goods. On the other hand, the Adjudicating Authority had given a detailed finding on this issue which would be accepted. Regarding the disallowance of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 1,41,890/- and ₹ 1,02,084/- the Tribunal remanded the matter with observation as under: 13. We find that as the appellants are taking credit in respect of the duty which has been paid by the supplier of the inputs and even a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
