TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? - Held that: - the appellant could be able to show and establish that all the capital goods were installed and used in the manufacture of finished goods. Merely because they could not produce the revised ground plan at the time of visit by the audit cannot lead to an inference that these capital goods were removed from the factory and not available - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted in December 2010, the appellant could not show all the Capital Goods installed in their registered premises ie., ground floor of the factory. It is the contention of the Advocate for the appellant that there was acquisition of additional premises ie., 1 st floor in the year 2004 and on re-arrangement of the operational area, some of the installed machinery has been shifted to the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of the demand. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the Capital goods which were initially installed at the ground floor of the factory premises, partly shifted and relocated at the first floor after due intimation to the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
