9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 51298 of 2019-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 51803/2019 - Dated:- 16-12-2019 - HON BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Navin Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellant Shri P. Juneja, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER ANIL CHOUDHARY: The issue in this appeal is whether the cenvat credit claimed by the appellant in addition to the amount reflected in the ST-3 return, by way of increase in amount in the revised ST-3 return , whether the same has been rightly denied credit and consequent refund under the provisions of Section 142(9) of the CGST Act read with the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The admitted facts are that the appellant is a banki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Credit Rules, 2004 and accordingly the appellant was required to show cause as to why the refund claim should not be rejected under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act with further direction to produce all evidences in support of their claim. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest whereby the Assistant Commissioner has been pleased to reject the refund by observing as follows:- 10. I have carefully gone through the claim papers, replies and verification report of the Jurisdictional Range officer and find that the invoices containing the CENVAT of ₹ 49,127/- against which aforesaid cenvat credit has been taken issued before one year of taking cenvat credit hence violated provisions of Rules 4(1) and (7) of Cenvat Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority the appellant has failed to submit the duty paying documents for verification. Further they have failed to produce the documents at the appellate stage and accordingly the appeal was rejected. 5. Heard the parties. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the rejection of cenvat credit by the Court below is on the observation relying on the verification report of the jurisdictional Range Officer. I find that no such report/copy was provided to the appellant, neither any opportunity provided to inspect the report and offer their comments. In this view of the matter, it is miscarriage of justice by denying adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed by way of remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
