ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa.
1.
After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty amount of Rs.6,923.18 (rupees six thousand nine hundred twenty three & eighteen paise) and penalty of Rs.1,000/-(rupees one thousand only) I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.
2. Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, ld.consultant appearing for the appellant submits that originally show cause notice proposed to deny the modvat credit on the ground that though the credit entry was made in RG-23A part-II the inputs were not entered into the RG-23A part-I. On adjudication the Asstt.Commissioner observed that the inputs were entered into other records and as such mere non-entry in RG-23A part-I will not disentitle the appellant from the benefit of modvat credit. However, based upon the report from the superintendent that the appellant could not produce documents in respect of all the inputs, he extended the benefit only in respect of those inputs where the appellant could produce the documentary evidence of receipt of the same. It is the contention of the appellant that the said report of the superintendent was never served to them and they had all the documents in their possession. If the adjudicating authority would have given them a copy of the report, they would have produced all the documents before him and satisfied him about the receipt of the duty paid inputs. This having not been done, there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice.
3. After hearing Shri A.K.Chattopadhyay, ld.JDR for the Revenue on the above point I find that the disputes relates to the factual position, which can only be solved at the original level. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Asstt.Commissioner for looking into the documents in the possession of the appellants after giving them a reasonable opportunity to produce the same before him.
4. A portion of the credit has also been denied on the ground that there was no proper declaration in respect of Vam Organic Chemical. Shri Chattopadhyay submits that a declaration was filed after the receipt of the said inputs in their factory and as such the Asstt.Commissioner should have considered this point. As the matter has been remanded to the Asstt.Commissioner, I direct him to look into the said aspect also and decide the issue afresh. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
Dictated in the court.