TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....modh & Shri Tarik Ahmed, Advocates and Shri A.K. Sharma, VP for the Applicant(s) Shri Atul Handa, A.R. for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal Applicant has filed this application under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, for issuing necessary directions. 2. The facts of the case are that, the applicant filed refund claim of unutilised Cenvat credit lying in their Cenvat credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leaded that (1) the impugned Cenvat Credit of Rs. 16,78,26,562/- was not admissible to the responded as they are engaged in the activity of coating of paper which has been held as 'not amounting to manufacture' by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [CCE vs. Pitamber Coated Paper Limited. - 2015 (319) ELT 357 (SC)]. So, the raw material used by the respondent cannot be termed as 'input' and Cenvat Credit wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es have not been submitted before the Adjudicating Authority. I find that as per Rule 5(3) of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001, "The Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the adjudicating authority..... has been allowed a reasonable opportunity (a) to examine the evidence or document..... produced by the appellant". I note that in CCE Vs Hindusta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) in the impugned order, the proceedings were initiated against the applicant by the adjudicating authority. The applicant, by filing this application, is praying to issue directions to the adjudicating authority not to take any action, till disposal of this appeal. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that as the Commissioner (Appeals) has returned the file to the adjudicating authority, there....