TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut were cleared as such by the appellant. In fact there is no investigation in respect of above stated aspects as reflected in the impugned order. The adjudicating authority was not empowered by law to decide optimum quantity of input admissible to be procured for manufacture of unit quantity of final product and therefore, law did not empower the adjudicating authority to decide how much is the excess quantity of inputs procured by the appellant. - Appeal disposed of - E/798-99/06(DB) - Final Order No. 70277-70278/2016 - Dated:- 26-5-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar Member (Technical) Shri A.P. Mathur, Advocate, and Shri Abhishek Jaju, Advocate for Appellants Shri A.K. Goswami, Additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d personal penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs on Managing Director. Challenging the above said order, the appellants are before this Tribunal. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants argued that they are challenging the denial of cenvat credit of ₹ 53,37,815/- interest on the same, penalty of equal amount and personal penalty imposed on Managing Director. He has argued that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the said input i.e. rubber was not procured by the appellants and that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the input rubber so procured did not suffer central Excise duty and that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the rubber procured was not used in the manufacture of final produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e inputs had not suffered Central Excise duty nor that the input were cleared as such by the appellant. In fact there is no investigation in respect of above stated aspects as reflected in the impugned order. 4. We hold that the adjudicating authority was not empowered by law to decide optimum quantity of input admissible to be procured for manufacture of unit quantity of final product and therefore, law did not empower the adjudicating authority to decide how much is the excess quantity of inputs procured by the appellant. We hold that cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 53,37,815/- availed on rubber by the appellant is admissible to them. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of denial of Cenvat credit amounting to &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
