ORDER
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. Heard both sides.
2. This appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who in the impugned order disallowed Modvat Credit taken on various inputs received from time to time by the appellants. The total amount of Modvat Credit disallowed is Rs. 2,31,802/-. The appellant contends that he is entitled to the credit to the tune of Rs. 2,25,391/- out of total credit disallowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded his findings in para 4(i) and 4(v) of his order in regard to disallowance of credit of Rs. 2,31,802/-. In the first mentioned para, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellants have not contested the issue involved in the matter relating to disallowance of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,12,802/-. I perused the records and find that the appellants have been contesting this issue in their reply to the show cause notice as well as in their appeal of memorandum before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is not understood as to how the Commissioner (Appeals) comes to the findings that the appellants have not been contesting the issue involved. In regard to the findings at para 4(v), I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the evidence in the form of CRN and Cardex Register furnished by the appellants to indicate that the inputs covered under particular invoice have been received in their factory, on the ground that they are private records and the same by themselves are not sufficient to prove the appellants stand. Thus, he denies the credit of Rs. 1,12,589/- holding that the inputs were either not received or short received. This view of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be upheld. The department seems to have made a case on the basis of the very GRN and Cardex Register whenever they found that such CRN and Cardex Register did not indicate the receipt of the goods. It looks that different stands are being taken in respect of the same type of documents.
3. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, the appellants were asked to furnish , correlation chart giving the particulars of the invoices under which the inputs are received and the particulars of GRN and Cardex Registers, which indicate that the inputs were received. They have furnished correlation charts in respect of both the amount mentioned above. It is the appellants stand that they have furnished similar information before the Commissioner (Appeals) when the matter was remanded in the earlier proceedings. It is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not specifically referred to any specific evidence produced by the appellants before him in support of their contention that the inputs were received in full. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which is based on the allegation in the show cause notice without any reference to various submissions before him cannot be upheld. The matter needs to be looked into by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the light of the correlation charts produced before me during the course of hearing. The correlation charts submitted before the Tribunals are appended to this order for the Commissioner (Appeals) to appreciate the contentions of the appellants. Both these charts are signed by me.
4. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside by way of remand. The Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to record his findings on the details furnished in the correlation charts while passing a fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard. The Commissioner (Appeals) is also directed to deal with the disputed amount of Rs. 2,25,391/- only.
5. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court)