M/S Atul Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Arising out of KKS/195/DAMAN/2008, dt.18.04.2008, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Vapi

M/s Atul Ltd. Appellant

Vs

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Daman Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh H. Shah, Senior Manager For Respondent: Shri Alok Srivastava, Dy.Commissioner (AR)

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:09.01.2015

Order No. A/10047 / 2015, dt.09.01.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. Learned Representative Shri Rakesh H. Shah, Sr.Manager of the appellant company fairly submits that this appeal was filed to the extent of denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.9,20,688.00 along with penalty. He submits that the Tribunal by Final Order No.A/898/WZB/2005/CII/EB, dt.21.09.2005, remanded this matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to verify the fact of taking credit on the basis of valid documents. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not verified the credit on the basis of valid documents and upheld the Adjudication Order dt.17.02.1999.

2. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue submits that the appellant has not placed the valid documents before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. He further submits that the appeal relates for the year 1986 and therefore there is no reason to remand this matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for verification. It is further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) examined the validity of the documents as observed by the adjudicating authority, hence, he has not gone into the documents himself.

3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the documents, I am unable to accept the submission of learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue. In my considered view, when the Tribunal categorically directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to verify the fact of taking credit on the basis of valid documents, then it is the duty of the Commissioner (Appeals) to verify the documents himself and he should not proceed on the basis of findings of the Adjudicating authority and upheld the Adjudication order dt.17.02.1999. Learned Representative for the appellant submits that they should be given an opportunity again to place the documents for verification before the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. In view of the above discussion, I direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to verify the fact of taking credit on the basis of valid documents as directed by the Tribunal in earlier order dt.21.09.2005. He would also consider the submissions of the appellant, in respect of imposition of penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)

cbb

3