TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) disposing of the 12 appeals filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. 2 The following identical questions have been formulated in all the 12 appeals for the consideration of this court: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the proceedings to the Original Authority for verification of requirement of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and fulfillment of conditions mentioned in the Notification No. 5/2006 dated 14.03.2006 and not deciding the appeals of the Appellants on merits? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellants are entitled to refund of unutilized credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? (c) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nutilised and therefore, conditions of Notification no. 5/2006C. E.(N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Rules had not been satisfied. 6 In second appeal, the Tribunal by its common order dated 13.03.2012 allowed the 12 appeals filed by the appellant by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. The basis of the remand was twofold one that the adjudicating authority had not applied his mind independently to the refund applications but merely went by the report of the Superintendent of Central Excise and secondly the batch wise correlation of inputs used in final products i.e. 1:1 correlation could not be carried out as the appellant had failed to produce documents in support of the same. The Tribunal held that the ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue whether 1:1 correlation is to be applied or not for the purposes of refund submits that the issue could be decided in remand proceedings. Thus no interference with the order of the Tribunal is called for. Mr. Jetly submits that the remand was justified as the adjudicating authority while granting the refund has not independently applied his mind to Notification No.5/2006 C.E.(N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 and merely relied upon the report submitted by the Range Superintendent. Therefore Mr. Jetly submits that no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. 9 We have considered the submissions. Normally, we would not interfere with an order of the Tribunal rem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gle discharge tank for input material. Further, they receive the input material into receiver for batch production either from the discharge tank or from the barrel to fix the quantity of batch input. As such though the stock is intermixed the input quantity could be ascertained. The position of the tank being commonly used for storing the liquid product, where from intake material is streamlined for final product do not disprove that the raw material was not used in the final product exported by the assessee. In such typical and peculiar situation, it has to be understood the issue by applying mind and simple common logic. In that case, the batch intake quantity, the ratio analysis between rat material to finished product, the length of pr....