9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t pertains to 50% credit availed on the steel items during the period from November 2013 to March 2014 and the said credit pertains to the second 50% which was earlier allowed by the Commissioner - credit is admissible to the appellant. CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that no usage proof was provided by the appellant - Held that: - this case needs to be remanded to the original authority to verify the usage of the material amounting to ₹ 1,38,766/- - matter on remand. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - E/21532/2016-SM - Final Order No. 21337 / 2017 - Dated:- 28-7-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Jitendra N Somaiya, Advocate for the appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter the appellant received a show-cause notice dt. 05/01/2015 proposing to deny the CENVAT credit on various items along with interest and penalty. The appellant filed the reply to the show-cause notice justifying the CENVAT credit availed by them. The Commissioner after following the due process of law vide the Order-in-Original dt. 29/07/2016, has allowed the credit of ₹ 70,38,452/- but disallowed the credit of ₹ 8,14,137/- under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and ordered for the recovery of interest under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also imposed penalty of ₹ 18,440/- under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Del.)] and CCE Vs. Shree Gurudatta Sugars [2007(213) ELT 305 (Tri. Mum.)]. He further submitted that out of the total credit disallowed, the credit of ₹ 6,48,208/- pertains to various items which are received by them during the period from November, 2013 to March 2014 on payment of total excise duty of ₹ 12,96,416/- under the cover of various invoices and the appellant had availed first 50% of the credit i.e. ₹ 6,48,208/- on the said items during the period from November 2013 to March 2014 and the remaining 50% of the credit is availed by them on 01/04/2014. He further submitted that the Commissioner on account of misunderstanding has disallowed the remaining 50% credit on the ground that the nature and the usage of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant is entitled to avail this CENVAT credit. With regard to other CENVAT credit, amounting to ₹ 6,48,208/-, the appellant has stated in reply to the show-cause notice that the said credit pertains to 50% credit availed on the steel items during the period from November 2013 to March 2014 and the said credit pertains to the second 50% which was earlier allowed by the Commissioner. Therefore this credit is admissible to the appellant. With regard to credit of ₹ 1,38,766/-, the credit has been denied because no usage proof was provided by the appellant. Therefore in view of this, I am of the opinion that this case needs to be remanded to the original authority to verify the usage of the material amounting to ₹ 1,38,766/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
