2002 (7) TMI 204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er (Appeals), New Delhi. The learned Advocate for the appellants stated that the original Adjudicating Authority had passed the order dated 21-4-2002 without giving a hearing to the appellants and the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to remand the case back to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo proceedings wrongly stating that such remand is not possible in view of the recent amendments in the C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se, it is seen that the Assistant Commissioner has not given any hearing to the appellants nor he has passed a regular order of adjudication. He has merely communicated through the letter dated 24-1-2000 that there was nil balance in RG-I as well as in RG 23-A Part-I registers. He has further stated that since no inputs were transferred to the new site, the Modvat credit balance cannot be permitte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns at the old premises by stipulating that the remaining stock of inputs is transferred to the new premises. It is sought to be ensured that no double benefit is given to the assessee by shifting a factory and the credit while leaving the inputs at the old premises. However, such a provision cannot be reasonably extended to deny transfer of credit when there is physically no stock of inputs at the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X