Kinetic Engineering Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

(Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. PIII/VM/113& 114/2010 dtd. 4/6/2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise, Pune -III) For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)

=======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes authorities? =======================================================

Kinetic Engineering Ltd. : Appellants

VS

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III : Respondent

Appearance

None for the Appellants Shri. Rakesh Goyal, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 15/4/2015 Date of decision 15/4/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : Ramesh Nair

The appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. PIII/ VM/113& 114/2010 dtd. 4/6/2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Pune -III, wherein Ld. Commissioner upheld the demand of duty and interest which was confirmed in the order-in-original. Ld. Commissioner also enhanced the penalty from Rs. 2,000/- to equal amount of duty i.e. Rs. 2,09,029/- in terms of Rule 13(2) and 15(2) of Cenvat Credit rules, 2002 & 2004 respectively read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The fact of the case is that appellant has brought back dutiable goods in their factory and availed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,09,029/- in terms of rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The said credit was dis-allowed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that records of receipt of the duty paid goods was not produced. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). Against same order Revenue also filed appeal for enhancement of the penalty. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld demand of Cenvat Credit and interest and also enhanced the penalty. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner(Appeals), appellant is before me.

2. When the matter was called for the hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any adjournment request is available on record. Therefore I proceed to decide the matter on merit.

3. Shri. Rakesh Goyal, Ld. Addl. Commissioner appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.

4. I have carefully gone through the appeal memorandum and considered the submission made by Ld. A.R.

5. I find that the appellant before the adjudicating authority had submitted records alongwith copies of invoices under which the goods were brought back to their factory and credit was availed. The said records were submitted to their Jurisdictional Superintendent and this was intimated to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority in the order-in-original recorded that assessee had furnished certain documents which require to be cross verified with the Range records accordingly assessee asked to get the same verified from the jurisdictional Range Officer and furnish compliance. I surprise that once the appellant had submitted all the records to the Range Officer, it is duty of the Range Officer to conduct verification of the submitted documents and submit the report to the adjudicating authority, which was not done. Adjudicating authority without calling for the verification report from the jurisdictional superintendent, passed the order, for confirmation of demand which is clearly in violation of principle of natural justice. In view of this fact, I allow the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority with a direction that proper verification of the records which was already submitted to the Range superintendent must be carried out and thereafter reasoned order may be passed. The denovo adjudication process may be completed within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated in court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial)

sk