Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)
Heidelberg Cement India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 21 November, 2016 cites

M/S. Sanghavi Engineering vs Cce, Hyderabad on 13 July, 2012

c) Sanghavi Engineering Vs. CCE, Hyderabad  2013 (297) E.L.T. 277 (Tri.-Bang.) 3.1. He further submitted that the inputs have been subsequently used in the manufacture and hence the appellants are entitled to take back the credit in terms of the provisions to Rule 3(5B). He further submitted that in reply to the show-cause notice the appellants have filed the policy of the company along with worksheets and other documents to prove that they have made partial provisions. But both the parties below have not examined the documentary evidence. The appellant has also produced these documents in the present appeal also. But in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the appellants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the provision is made only for partial value of goods for write off. In view of this finding returned by the Commissioner, I am of the opinion that this case needs to be remanded back to the learned Commissioner with a direction to consider the documents and the worksheets and the policy of the company with regard to partial write off. Therefore I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned Commissioner to decide the matter at de novo after considering the documentary evidence produced by the appellant. The learned Commissioner is directed to dispose of the case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Before disposing of the case, the learned Commissioner will afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and also an opportunity of producing any documents in support of his submission. With this the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1