2007 (10) TMI 506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondent. [Order]. -  None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Heard the ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue and perused the records. 2. The issue involved in this case is denial of Cenvat Credit under Rule 57H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant availed Modvat credit in respect of the inputs and finished goods under Rule 57H. Subsequently, the Superin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants challenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals). By order-in-appeal dated 24-6-2005, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. The relevant portion of the order-in-appeal is reproduced below :- "Accordingly, I set aside t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hearing ld. DR and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the main contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his earlier order-in-appeal held that the Superintendent's letter dated 6-2-96 is to be treated as a nullity on the issue. Therefore, the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the letter dated 6-2-96 is to be treated as a show cause ....