9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, in the remand proceedings also, the adjudicating authority has not dealt with the issue, for which, the matter was specifically remanded to him. The verification report dated 24.01.2014 cannot be discarded at this juncture, inasmuch as the ld. Adjudicating Authority has not specifically addressed the issue and has not based his findings on any additional documents/ records in this context - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/50068/2016[SM] - A/56580/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 11-9-2017 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Ms. Sukriti, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. G.R. Singh, D.R. ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY This is the second round of litigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground of time bar. The stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner. 2. Pursuant to the remand direction of the Tribunal, the Adjudicating Authority took up the denovo adjudication proceedings and passed the order dated 13.10.2015 (impugned herein), wherein Cenvat Credit of ₹ 42,60,079/- was disallowed alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellant. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that based on the documents maintained by the appellant, the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent under the cover of his letter dated 24.01.2014 has submitted the report to the adjudicating authority stating that wherever the disputed goods were used for manufacture of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le capital goods installed in the factory. Thus, he submits that in absence of any documentary evidence, denial of Cenvat Credit by the adjudicating authority cannot be questioned and the impugned order passed by the authority below is maintainable under the statute. Further, he submits that during the disputed period, the definition of input has clearly excluded the disputed goods from its purview for the purpose of Cenvat benefit. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. I find that without considering the verification reports submitted by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent, the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, vide order dated 27.02.2014 had disallowed the Cenvat benefit to the appellant. Upon appreciation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
