TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion had been carried out by the Department. Simultaneously, it also cannot be denied that while furnishing the Certificate, the Appellant had not specifically mentioned the particular heading of the machineries, wherein these items were used by them, whereby its eligibility as capital goods could have been verified by the Department, in deciding the case - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/A/394/2012 - FO/A/75323/2014 - Dated:- 19-5-2014 - D M Misra And I P Lal, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri N K Chowdhury, Adv. Assisted by Shri B N Chattopadhyay, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri S Misra, Addl. Commissioner (AR) PER : D M Misra This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s referred to in the Show Cause Notice, no further enquiry had been conducted on the correctness of the said Certificate. 3. Per contra, ld. AR for the Revenue submits that the ld. Commissioner has recorded a detailed finding on the eligibility of various steel items as capital goods, in the impugned Order. He submits that while verifying the Chartered Engineers Certificate, the ld. Commissioner had observed that in the said Certificate, headings/sub-headings of the capital items had not been specified, so as to qualify those machineries to fall under Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He submits that the burden lies on the Applicant who claims the CENVAT Credit to classify and intimate the Department, the Chapter Heading of mac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be denied that while furnishing the Certificate, the Appellant had not specifically mentioned the particular heading of the machineries, wherein these items were used by them, whereby its eligibility as capital goods could have been verified by the Department, in deciding the case. Undisputedly, the Appellant had already deposited an amount of Rs.17.57 lakh, accepting their liability that a part of the received quantity of steel items had been used in fabrication of the structures. The Revenue, however, disputes the quantum of these items used in the machineries or the structurals. To ascertain the factual position, in our view, it is necessary to remand the matter to the ld. Commissioner to re-examine the evidences, afresh. We find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
