9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n hearing before the Adjudicating Authority /Commissioner (Appeals) at Rajkot and hence the adjournment may be granted. After perusal of the records, I find that the appeal lies in a narrow compass accordingly, the appeals are taken up for disposal even in the absence of any representation from the respondent. 4. Heard Ld DR and perused the records. 5. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding availment of Cenvat Credit on the documents self created by the respondent or otherwise. 6. The factual matrix that arises for consideration are the respondent herein is a manufacturer of excisable goods, are availing Cenvat Credit on Inputs and Input Services. They cleared the final products on payment of duty which were rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents and there was contravention of the Rules. 8. I find that the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order has considered all the objections raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal and has submitted by the Ld DR in the impugned order. The First Appellate Authority after recording the main issue to be decided by him in Para 5 of the impugned order reproduces the provision of Rule 9 of the CCR and subsequently records the following findings while setting aside the Order in Original. I reproduce the same.: "I find that on going through the list of the prescribed documents it is seen that none of the documents prescribed under Rule 9 envisage a situation where credit is required to be taken on finished goods returned to the manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of cenvat credit. I find that the appellants have not suppressed the material facts from the department. Therefore, I hold that imposition of penalty on the appellant is not legal." 9. The above recorded findings are undisputed by the Revenue as to the receipt of the goods back in the factory premises The duty paid character of the same. 10. In my view, the First Appellate Authority has taken plausible view on the issue within the framework of the provisions of Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004 and Rule 16 of CER, 2002. 11. In view of the fore going, I hold that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference. The impugned order is upheld and the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected, consequently, the cross obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
