9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant Mr. B.S. Suhag, DR, for the Respondent [Order] - This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Jalandhar dated 22.9.06 upholding the rejection of refund claim of the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner, Phagwara vide his order-in-original dated 27.2.06. 2. The appellant is a manufacture of BOPP film falling under Chapter Heading 39.02 of the Central Excise Tariff. During the year 2001-2002. It had imported filter stacks and availed modvat credit of CVD. Later, the appellant exported the goods to the original seller for repairs vide ARE-1 No. 33/2004-05 dated 1.6.04 and invoice No. E/05 dated 1.6.04 declaring the value of the goods as R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that the impugned orders are fit to be set aside as being not in accord with the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The said rule may be quoted verbatim as under:- "The CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, reconditioning or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans or memos or any other document produced by the assessee taking the CENVAT credit that the goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eighty days of their being sent to a job worker and if the inputs or the capital goods are not rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... According to the appellant by constant use of the subject goods (filter stacks) in the plant, with the passage of time, they get damaged necessitating repairs from time to time. While the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) at least referred to Rule 4(5)(a) in his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not even care to mention it. 5. In the ordinary course, I would have sent the case back for fresh consideration by the Assistant Commissioner after verification of the records as was done by the Single Member Bench of this Tribunal in appellant's own case (Appeal Nos. E/396, 1092-94 and 2341/05-SM) in identical circumstances. However, learned counsel of the appellant, referring to para 2 of the show cause notice, stated that the foundati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
