9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led were destroyed when the work was in progress - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21409/2017-SM - Final Order No.22895/2017 - Dated:- 24-11-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member B. N. Gururaj, Shri BN Gururaj, Adv. For the Appellant Shri Naveen Kumar, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP Tapes, webbings, yarn, PP Woven Fabric, FIBC Bags, etc. falling under Chapter Hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not returned within 180 days under Rule 4 (5) (a) of CCR along with interest. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued demanding reversal of an amount of ₹ 13,25,347/- under Rule 14 CCR along with interest and equivalent penalty under section 11AC of CE Act and Rule 15(2) of CCR. 3. After following the due process of law, the original authority vide its order-in-original dated 10.04.2014 confirmed the demand of ₹ 13,25,347/- along with interest and equivalent penalty invoking the extended period. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner who also rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. The L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the appellant is still pending before the appropriate authority and if the remission is allowed, then the appellant is required to reverse back the credit. 8. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of records and judgments cited supra, I find that the ratio of the above cited decisions is applicable in the present case. Further, in the case of CCE, Chennai-III Vs. Indchem Electronics - 2003 (151) ELT 393 (Tri-Chennai), it has been held by the Tribunal that where the inputs were actually issued and thereafter destroyed in the fire accident, there was no requirement of reversal of credit. This decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 2003 (151) ELT 393 (T-Chennai) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
