TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Pramod Kumar, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per Hon'ble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa : The impugned orders stand passed by the CCE in de novo proceedings when the matter was remanded by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in the light of directions made by the Tribunal. The disputes relate to are availability of MODVAT credit in terms of the erstwhile Rule 57H and allowing cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....first-come first out, he rejected the assessee's claim. 2. The said order was appealed by the appellants before the Tribunal, who vide its Final Order No.90-92/04-B, dated 01.01.2004, remanded the matter to the Commissioner for afresh adjudication in the light of the following directions made by the Tribunal:- There is a force i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be decided by the Adjudicating Authority after taking the decision in respect of eligibility to MODVAT credit under Rule 57H. All the three appeals are disposed of in the above manner. 3. The Commissioner in the present impugned order again rejected the MODVAT credit as also imposed penalties on the three appellants by arriving at the findings that consumption of inputs have to be considered on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded that there are two conditions which stand imposed by the Tribunal for de novo adjudication but has wrongly added the third condition itself 'it is equally necessary to prove the existence of in such inputs in tangible physical form'. There is no dispute that there was stock of the inputs lying in the appellants factory as on 01.03.19997 either as such or as contained in their final product. ....