TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding cannot be apparently barred by the above mentioned rule. There is no allegation that the new set of evidences have been submitted by the respondent which came into existence after the said case was decided by the Original Authority. I find no substantial ground in the appeal by the Revenue when there is no challenge on merit. A perusal of the impugned order to examine the merit reveals that the factual usage of various items have been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) and he was guided by various decided cases including the application of user test as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and in General Mills [2001 (7) TMI 118 - SUPREME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals). It is the case of the Department that drawings, designs and various detailed supporting charts as per Chartered Engineers certificate were produced before the Appellate authority and not before the Original Authority. The impugned order has not been challenged on merits. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that as can be seen from the original order they have produced drawing layout, deployment of material handling system and Chartered Engineers Certificate about the usage of various items on which credit has been availed by them. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has examined these evidences along with supporting photographs. The details of production/clearances of various items as mentioned in ER-1 Return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned as the reason for alleging the said violation of Rule 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) is well within his right to seek clarification to explain any evidences submitted before him, before appreciating the said evidence for a finding. Seeking additional information or clarification on evidences on record to facilitate the proper finding cannot be apparently barred by the above mentioned rule. There is also no allegation that the new set of evidences have been submitted by the respondent which came into existence after the said case was decided by the Original Authority. I find no substantial ground in the appeal by the Revenue when there is no challenge on merit. A perusal of the impugned order to examine the merit reveals that the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
