TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents are still with the Department. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, the matters are remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), to decide the said issue of eligibility of credit of ₹ 26,08,48/- availed on returned/rejected goods afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Central Excise Appeal No.12931, 12933 of 2014–SM - A/12861-12862/2017 - Dated:- 5-10-2017 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty on both the Appellants was imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed Appeals before the ld. Commissioner(Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit of ₹ 8,10,768/-, but upheld denial of credit of ₹ 26,08,549/- and imposed penalty accordingly. Hence, the present Appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri Prakash Shah for the Appellants submits that even thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices were seized earlier in connection with some other cases, no attempt was made by the Appellant by writing to the department for its return to them. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while confirming denial of credit of ₹ 26,08,48/-, on retuned/rejected goods under Rule 16 of CER,2002, recorded as follows: 10. In respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no evidence that it were returned to the Appellant. Thus, it is clear that these documents are still with the Department. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, the matters are remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), to decide the said issue of eligibility of credit of ₹ 26,08,48/- availed on returned/rejected goods afresh after taking into consideration the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
