TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the report of the RO without appellant being associated in the enquiry - case remanded back to original authority. - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/26257/2013-SM - Final Order No. 20604/ 2016 - Dated:- 3-8-2016 - Shri S. S Garg, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Rahul Patil, Authorized Rep For the Respondent : Shri Mohd Yusuf, AR ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner vide which he upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Sugar and Molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit of ₹ 1,71,587/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Seven only) under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944. Thereafter the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the original authority. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the denial of cenvat credit on the disputed item is wrong and illegal. He further submitted that the disputed items have been used for support of the structure on which the machinery has been placed. He also submitted that the chequered plates involving credit of ₹ 49,849/- (Rupees Forty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is pertinent to reproduce para 18 of the impugned order which is as under: 18. In the instant case it can be seen from the table that the appellant had availed cenvat credit on items used for foundation of boiling house equipments was ₹ 28,356/- on items used for supporting structure of capital goods was ₹ 93,372/- and manufacture/fabrication of capital goods was ₹ 48,849/-. However, the original authority at para 15(C) of the order has recorded as follows: It also transpires from the record that the assessee was not able to establish that these goods were in fact used in respect of any particular machinery. It has been claimed to be so but as reported in the verifications made in this behalf by the RO that manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate of the expert before the authorities below at the time of passing of the impugned order. 3. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the certificates of the experts placed on record by the appellant, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the subject order is merely relied upon the report of the RO without appellant being associated in the enquiry. In view of the expert s evidence on record, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority with the direction to pass an order afresh after taking documentary evidence and the report of the expert with regard to the actual use of disputed items in the factory. The adjudicating authority will pass reasoned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
