TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment if the case is remanded back to the original authority. This case needs to be remanded back to the original authority because the documents which are in possession of the appellant have not been considered by both the authorities - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/20427/2018-SM - 20738/2018 - Dated:- 18-5-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri N. Viswanathan,Adv For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Asst. Commisisoner(AR) For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 14/12/2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeal) has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cleared goods valued at ₹ 31,38,187/- without payment of central excise Duty of ₹ 3,87,880/- in contravention of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rule, 2002. On this allegation, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to recover the excess CENVAT credit availed along with interest by invoking the extended period of limitation. The original authority, after following the due process, confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 4. Heard both sides and perused records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Register (RG23A) maintained by them contained the details of all receipt of goods both from independent parties as well as the stock transferred from their other units on payment of duty which was the actual reason for the difference in the value shown in the Trial Balance and RG23A. he further submitted that the original authority has not seen the invoices on which the CENVAT credit has been taken by the appellant. He further submitted that the lower authorities have not disputed that the disputed duty of ₹ 3,87,880/- and value of ₹ 31,38,187/- only pertained to the cancelled invoice No.3668 dt. 13/06/2013 and the Department should not have upheld the demand of duty on the ground that the appellant did not inform the cancell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises which was not verified by the Department. Further I find that the appellant has claimed that they have all the documents / invoices in their possession on basis of which, the appellant has taken cenvat credit and they are ready to show the documents to the Department if the case is remanded back to the original authority, After considering the submissions, I find that this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority because the documents which are in possession of the appellant have not been considered by both the authorities. Further I also find that the Department has claimed excise duty on a stock transfer invoice which was cancelled but no intimation was given to the Department. Therefore in view of these facts, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
