9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of remand. - E/20459/2017-SM - Final Oder No. 20689/2018 - Dated:- 24-4-2018 - Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CA- For the Appellant Shri. N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR)- For the Respondent Order Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 20/12/2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of readymade garments falling under Chapter 61 of CETA, 1985. During the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellant had manufactured and cleared excisable goods and also had raised certain credit notes ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as erred in understanding the facts that are certified by a qualified Chartered Accountant. He further submitted that there is no provision in the ER1 return to state the facts of goods returned or to declare the raising of credit notes for return of goods and in the absence of such provision, the Department cannot hold that there was suppression of facts or misdeclaration. The learned consultant further submitted that there is a Revenue neutrality in the present case as the duty on the returned goods is actually paid while the same are cleared in the next month and there is no loss to the Government. The learned consultant further submitted that the assessee has not violated the Notification No.31/2011-CE dt. 24/03/2011 nor Rule 16 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original authority to verify this material fact as to whether the goods were returned in the same month as claimed by the assessee or returned back in the different months as noted by the Commissioner(Appeals). Therefore for this purpose, the matter is remanded back to the original authority who will pass de novo order after considering all the documents which the appellant may produce to prove that the goods were returned in the same month. Further the original authority will also examine the applicability of Notification No.31/2011-CE dt. 24/03/2011 and Rule 16 of the CER, 2002 which is alleged to have been violated by the appellant. Further the original authority will also record his finding on limitation. Consequently, the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
