9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, subsequently, another declaration was filed on 7-4-2004 revising the stock quantity – since there is no doubt that appellant was in possession of stock, authorities below is not justified in denying the credit on the ground that the credit could be granted only in respect of stock declared in the first declaration X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) with the following directions: "Furthermore, I find that the ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted copies of the input declaration, initially filed on 1-4-03 and the revised declaration filed on 7-4-2003 with the Division Office, Rajkot. I find that both the declarations were acknowledged by the Department and the place where the stock of inputs, were lying were as declared in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the original adjudicating authority who should now verify the input & finished goods stock as on 31-3-2003 with reference to the records maintained by them and then decide the case afresh after complying with the provision of the Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 as amended from time to time." 2. In the remand proceeding, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice has forwarded the copy of documents to justify the availability of the stock. The document submitted proves beyond doubt that the stock was available as on 31-3-2003. The admitted fact is that the stock declared in the first declaration was without proper verification of the material lying in the factory premises. But, on realization of such mistake, the revised declaration was filed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
