2018 (1) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty 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. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) For Applicant(s): Shri G Jha, Authorised Representative For Respondent(s): None ORDER Per: Shri M V Ravindran. These two appeals are filed by Revenue against OIA-AHM-EXCUS-002-APP-043-044-15-16 dt 31/12/2015.2. The Respondent herein has also filed COs in respect of these appeals. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. 3. The respondent has sought adjournment on the ground that the Consultant who is appearing is busy in hearing before the Adjudicating Authority /Commissioner (Appeals) at Rajkot and hence the adjou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce of goods or the invoices issued by the buyer in respect of the returned goods. It is the submission that required documents were not produced before the lower authorities and the relied upon documents appear almost lost considerable time and ignored. The objection raised with the auditors based on only the circumstantial evidences; not discussed anything about the delay in submission of documents at later stage we and failed to understand malafide intention of the assessee; ignore the provisions of Rule 9 of the CCR 2004 as Rule 16 of CER 2004. It is the submission that the assessee had availed credit as well as on the basis of improper documents and there was contravention of the Rules. 8. I find that the First Appellate Authority in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the department has not disputed receipt of quantity of returned finished goods, and it's accounting for the quantity in a separate part of Daily Stock account Register (Rg-1). I also find that, the adjudicating authorities findings regarding non-returning of original invoices in case of return of goods and cenvat credit availed is irregular, is not correct. Therefore, I hold that, cenvat credit availed by the appellant is allowed. Moreover, I find that, the appellant have given intimations vide letters dated 15-12-10, 18-1-11, 7-9-11, 21-3-12, 12-5-11, 25-8-12 to the range superintendent who has not raised any objections regarding admissibility of cenvat credit. I find that the appellants have not suppressed the material facts from the de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X