9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the total confirmed demand of Rs. 1,43,616/-, the appellants have already deposited an amount of Rs. 35,905/-. By treating the same as sufficient for the purpose of Section 35F, I dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and entire amount of penalty and proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides. 2. After hearing both the sides, I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentative admitting that such goods were rejected by the consignee and they had taken the modvat credit in respect of the same. 4. However, during adjudication, appellants took a categorical stand that the rejected goods were never received back in their factory and no modvat credit stands availed on the same. They contended that as the goods were not received, the same were not account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) has traveled beyond the allegations made in the show cause notice and the findings arrived at by the original adjudicating authority, which confirmed the demand by denying the modvat credit, Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand by holding that the appellant liable to pay duty on initially cleared goods, learned advocate Shri S.J. Vyas has submitted that the finding of the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f clearance does not arise. 8. I find that the above issues raised by the learned advocate depend upon the factual verification of the facts. Whether rewarehousing certificates establishing the fact of receipt of goods by the consignee is available or not, is required to be examined. Further, the fact that whether such rejected goods were actually received back by the appellants in their f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
