Tribunal allows appeal on written-off inputs, but subsequent demand confirmed due to unavailability. Possession/use not proven.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding a demand raised on inputs written off during 1996-98 but permitted Revenue to raise fresh demands if inputs were removed or unavailable. A subsequent demand of Rs. 14,73,809/- was confirmed based on the unavailability of most part numbers, leading to the rejection of the appeal due to the appellant's failure to prove possession or use of the written-off inputs. Despite an opportunity provided by the Commissioner (Appeals) to establish the use of obsolete parts, the appellant's appeal was ultimately rejected.

---

---

Issues:
1. Demand raised on written-off inputs during 1996-98.
2. Fresh demand initiated due to unavailability of inputs.
3. Verification revealing availability of only 31 out of 515 part numbers.
4. Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding re-crediting Cenvat credit.
5. Appellant's failure to establish possession or use of written-off inputs.
6. Opportunity provided by Commissioner (Appeals) to establish use or clearance of obsolete parts.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellants faced a demand raised by Revenue on inputs written off during 1996-98. The Tribunal's decision allowed the appeal but granted Revenue the liberty to raise fresh demands if inputs were removed or unavailable.

Issue 2:
Revenue initiated fresh proceedings via a Show Cause Notice, alleging unavailability of inputs based on a verification report. A demand of Rs. 14,73,809/- was confirmed, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.

Issue 3:
Verification revealed only 31 out of 515 part numbers were available with the appellant. Lack of stock for the remaining parts raised questions regarding their use or removal, as explained in the impugned order.

Issue 4:
The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered re-crediting Cenvat credit based on specific conditions for different part numbers, emphasizing the need for material evidence to support claims regarding obsolete items.

Issue 5:
The appellant failed to establish possession or use of written-off inputs, as acknowledged by their advocate. The onus was on the appellant to provide evidence, and the lack of requisition or issuance slips hindered their case.

Issue 6:
Despite the appellant's inability to prove the use of obsolete parts, the Commissioner (Appeals) provided an opportunity to establish this with material evidence. The order was deemed judicious and in line with principles of natural justice, leading to the rejection of the appellant's appeal.

---