Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1.1 In the remand proceeding, the adjudicating authority vide impugned order dated 12.04.2011 once again denied the Cenvat Credit imposing a penalty of Rs.3 Lakhs therefore, the present appeal filed by appellant.

02. Shri Hasit Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the tribunal has clearly directed the adjudicating authority to decide the matter in the light of the judgment on the issue regarding eligibility of Modvat Credit on the goods in transit. He submits that the appellant have duly filed the declaration dated 07.04.2003 and the same has also been verified by the Range Superintendent as per report dated 05.12.2005 wherein, it was clearly recorded that goods were in transit and received after 01.04.2003. He submits that the adjudicating authority going beyond the scope of remand order denied the Cenvat Credit on the goods in transit on the ground that the goods were in transit as on 31.03.2003 were actually received after 01.04.2003. He submits that the tribunal while remanding, clearly stated that the judgments in the case of Elecon Fabrics [2007 (216) ELT 694 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] & Jaldarshan Textile [2009 (243) ELT 751 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] is to be considered. He submits that as per the aforesaid judgments Modvat Credit on the goods in transit has been allowed. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has erred in not following the aforesaid judgments. He further submits that the issue of quantification of valuation is not being contested therefore, the issue to be decided is only eligibility of Modvat Credit on the inputs in transit as on 31.03.2003.