TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasoned findings but is based on presumptions and assumptions. Accordingly, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter once again to the Commissioner to give reasoned findings to arrive at decision. Meanwhile, we find that both sides have cited numerous case law which is relevant for the purpose of reaching the conclusion, the Commissioner will give an opportunity to the appellant to present their case before taking a final decision. - Matter remanded back. - Appeal No. E/3096/05 - A/85729/16/EB - Dated:- 10-2-2016 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri M.P.S. Joshi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Ashutosh Nath, Assistant Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the explanation to Rule 57 Q(1)(b). The details are in Annexure-B 14,57,639.35 d) The goods are not originally consigned to the assessee in the duty paying documents as detailed in Annexure-D 2,235.00 f) They have taken credit on traders and incomplete invoices, the credit is not available as detailed in Annexure-F 3,650.87 The total credit of duty recoverable as per the Annexures- B, D, and F 14,83,525.22 The matter was adjudicated earlier vide Order-in-Original No. 27/CEX/98 dated Nil August, 1998. The appellant approached the Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44 (SC) (h) Jindal Strips Ltd. -1998 (98) ELT 747 (Tri) (i) Jaypee Reva Cements - 1997 (96) ELT 167 (Tri) (j) Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. - 1996 (88) ELT 753 (Tri) (k) Mahindra Mahindra - 1996 (87) ELT 258 (Tri) (l) CCE Vs. Zenith Papers - 2002 (146) ELT 518 (P H) (m) CCE Vs. Jagadambay Enginnering Welding Works - 2002 (143) ELT 496 (n) Manikgarh Cement Ltd.- 2001 (136) ELT 1085 He argued that there are no findings with respect to the applicability of the aforesaid decisions to the impugned case. The Commissioner has completely relied on the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. - 2001 (128) ELT 293 (Tri-LB). He argued that it cannot be a basis of discard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be contended by the Revenue that these items are not covered by the Headings mentioned in Notification 14/96 or that the items are not capital goods within the meaning of Explanation 1(a) under Rule 57Q as it stood during the relevant period. This decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2001 (45) RLT 739 (SC). It was argued that the Commissioners observation that these items have been included later on, does not mean that the same were not covered under the principal definition of capital goods. 2.2 Learned Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner has disallowed the credit on electrodes on the ground that the same were consumable on the basis of Tribunal s decision in the appellant s own case cite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the purview of capital goods definition. He has denied credit on Thermilite Sheets, Thermo sheets, ceramic coating, Formica sheet, Promil sheets, PVC pipe on the ground that these goods were not covered under the ambit of capital goods during the impugned period. 3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. 4. We have gone through the rival contentions. We find that the appellant had cited various case laws in support of their claim but the order of Commissioner does not specifically deal with any of them. We find that the order of Commissioner is based on his assumptions and not on facts. For example, he has held in case of Hose, air cleaners that they do not appear to be even remotely involved in producing, processing of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
