ORDER
K.D. Mankar, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The appellants are claiming that credit has been taken by them within the period of 9 months from the date of receipt of duty paying invoice which is permissible under Rule 57G(3) of the Central Excise Rules read with rule 57J. The objection for not taking the credit within 6 months under Rule 57G(5) can be of material consequence only if the appellants were not working under Rule 57J in the latter rule the time limit is 9 months and not 6 months.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has however recorded that sufficient evidence is not on record to accept the submission of the appellant to the effect that they were indeed working under Rule 57J The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants has produced copies of various declarations filed before the departmental authorities under Rule 57G and rule 57J. The Ld. Counsel also drew my attention to the fact that show cause notice admits that the raw material was actually received by the job workers from the raw material manufacturers, while the invoices were received by the appellants.
3. The Ld. DR submits that, since this is a case of verification of facts as to whether or not the appellants were working under Rule 57J so as to extend them the benefit of taking credit within 9 months, this is a matter which is required to be verified by the lower authorities with reference to the evidence that has been furnished. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), though examined some invoices, his conclusion was that, there was no sufficient evidence to accept that the appellants were working under Rule 57J, or that the procedure under that rule was followed.
4. On hearing the rival arguments I find that the evidence that has been tendered was also available before the lower authorities and if it was not sufficient, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have sought more details from the appellants, to satisfy, as to whether the appellants were working under Rule 57J. Therefore this matter is required to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for examining the facts of the case and pass fresh orders thereon, after affording appropriate opportunities to the appellants to substantiate their case that they were operating under Rule 57J.
5. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the appeal of the appellant is allowed by way of denovo remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) in the above terms. The Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to pass fresh orders within 3 months from the date of this order, after
following the principles of natural justice.