9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it, as determine and claimed by it. The order passed by the Commissioner of GST Central Excise (Appeals-Thane) Mumbai is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed. - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajiv Ranjan, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Denial of CENVAT Credit to the Appellant for want of proper document to establish availability of stock and subsequent receipt at it service station, after parts of automobiles repacking and sale has become an activity amounting to manufacture w.e.f. 01.06.2006 upon amendment made to Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1994 vide Notification No. 12/2006 dated 29.05.2006, is assailed in this seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied by the Respondent-Department to determine the extent of credit but the Adjudicating Authority has reconfirmed the same amount of credit as inadmissible that also received approval of the Commissioner (Appeals). Appellant has assailed the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) before this forum. 3. I have heard on the submission from both the sides and gone through the written note of submissions filed by both of them. This Tribunal vide its modified order dated 29.03.2019, held as follows: 7. In view of the above, we allow the appeals by way of remand to the jurisdictional authorities to allow credit after verifying the records, available with the appellant or the Department pertaining to receipt (import), storage and distribution of par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant on 14.05.2019 before the Adjudicating Authority, it is very clear that Annexure-22, that was also filed before CESTAT that brings out correlation of input lying in stock as on 01.06.2006 with duty paid and Bill of entry detail etc. as well as Annexure-21 containing detail of spare parts received in June and July, 2006 from the central warehouse by the Appellant were all filed before the Adjudicating Authority and Appellant had pleaded to dispense with the requirement of producing any further document for verification, since those documents were already produced before the Auditors deputed by the Respondent-Department and were being quite old was not readily in possession of the Appellant. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
