2017 (8) TMI 306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Shri K. Samodh & 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 unutilis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (ii) I find that the appellant Revenue has pleaded 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itional grounds/evidence viz. These grounds/evidences 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..... produce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bunal. As per the directions of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) 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) h....