JUDGMENT
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the availability of modvat credit of the disputed amount to the appellants on the rejected goods,
2. The facts are not much in dispute, The appellants imported certain inputs vide Bill of Entry dated 16.4.97 after paying the requisite duty and additional duty of customs. They accordingly took the modvat credit of the disputed amount of Rs. 3,57,927. But later on, they thought of re-exporting part of the consignment to the foreign suppler, being defective. They reversed the modvat credit accordingly of the proportionate amount and issued invoices in terms of Rule 52A. But they did not re-export. They sought to take recredit of that very amount which they had earlier reversed. But that recredit has been disallowed though the impugned order.
3. I have heard both sides. So far as non-re-export of the inputs is concerned that has not been disputed. In other words, alleged defective inputs were not actually re-exported although for that purpose, initially invoice under Rule 52A read with 57F was issued. But the plea taken up by the appellants is that they brought back those inputs to the factory and utilized them in the manufacture of the final products and as such, they are entitled to take recredit of the amount which they earlier reversed, at the time of issue of invoice under Rule 52A, This applea of the appellants appears to have not been disputed by the adjudicating authority while passing the Order-in-Original. The adjudicating authority has only observed that proper procedure as laid down in Central Excise Rules was not followed and as such for that reason, the appellants were not entitled to take recredit, whereas, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded on a quite different ground for rejecting the claim of the appellants for recredit of the modvat amount. The perusal of the impugned order shows that he, has observed that there was no evidence on the record to prove the receipt of the goods back in the factory after the appellants failed to re-export and for that reason recredit was not admissible. This material contradiction on a vital point between the two orders of the authorities below, appears to have resulted in miscarriage of justice. Learned Counsel has stated that the appellants had submitted all the necessary documents showing the receipt of the goods back in the factory after not re-exporting the same. Even the adjudicating authority has not disputed this fact. The adjudicating authority while dismissing the claim has not disclosed the particular Rules which the appellants were required to follow, but failed to do so. Even in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not elaborated this view of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, in my view, the matter deserves to be re-examined at the hands of the adjudicating authority, keeping in view the defence put up by the appellants and the documents placed on record for claiming recredit of the modvat amount in question. The Board’s Circular dated 30.12.96 referred by the Counsel also deserves to be taken into account by the adjudicating authority while deciding the case afresh.
4. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the case is sent back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.