2006 (7) TMI 686

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....used the impugned order. After perusal of the same and the records, we find that the order of the Commissioner while dis-allowing the modvat credit is solely based on various oral statements. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the specific information that M/s. Classic Strips Pvt. Ltd. the manufacturer of Printed self-adhesive PVC stickers/strips availed modvat/Cenvat facility under the then Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (now Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002). The impugned order does not appear to have discussed any documentary or corroborative evidence to sustain dis-allowance of the modvat credit. 3. The appellants are non SSI unit and are availing the benefit of Cenvat credit scheme on the duty paid in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DR. has reiterated the impugned order. After hearing and perusal of the records, we find that for the following reasons we need to waive the pre-deposit and after waiver allow the appeals at the stay stage itself :- (a)     The Commissioner has failed to carry out the direction of the Tribunal as contained in the order dated 24-6-2004. (b)     The Commissioner has failed to consider the documentary evidence relied on by the appellants. (c)     The Commissioner has only chosen to follow the previous order without considering the direction of the Tribunal as mentioned in the said order. (d)    The Commissioner has sought to counter the documentary evidence submit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y not an issue of concern to the respondent while the perfectly tallying stocks and absence of any statutory lapse or shortcoming on part of the appellants is of no consequence to the respondent. (g)     It is clear from the Para 114 of the impugned order that there was contradictions in the statement of transporters and as such the statement could not have been relied on in the impugned show cause notice and ultimately on the basis of the present impugned order. Without upholding the relevant documentary evidence it was not competent for the Commissioner to have chosen not to make proper enquires and ascertain the truth. The oral statement cannot be relied on the face of the documentary evidence. The documentary eviden....