9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished goods itself when it is returned for reconditioned/repaired? - Held that: - This issue was decided by the adjudicating authority on different aspect which was not raised in the show cause notice also it is not flowing from the order-in-original, therefore the impugned order is not sustainable - the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the case on merit and only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals), who has rejected the appeal on the ground of procedural lapse as the appellants have not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Being aggrieved by the order-in-appeal, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 2. Shri Roshil Nichani, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellants have not receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the issue raised in the show cause notice was whether the appellant is entitled for the modvat credit on their own finished goods and it was returned to appellant factory for repair, re-condition, re-made etc. there was no allegation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
