TALBRO FORGINGS Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE would assume that there was a genuine mistake on the part of the parties, especially the appellant. The show cause notice inter alia stated as follows: -

(2.) THAT does not seem to the correct. The claim has not been rejected only because separate account books were not maintained for home clearance and for export production. The respondents appear to have rejected the claim on the ground that the separate account books not having been maintained, it was difficult to ascertain as to whether the inputs in respect of which CENVAT credit was claimed have actually been used for the purpose of the production of the goods which were exported. In other words, the mere fact that separate account books had not been maintained for the period April, 1998 to 27 -10 -1998 is not the ground for rejecting the claim.

(3.) IN the circumstances, it is only fair that the appellant has an opportunity of establishing its claim on merits. It is clarified that the appellant would be entitled to establish the same independently and the mere fact that the appellant had not maintained separate books during the period April 1998 to 27 -10 -1998 would not be a ground for rejecting the claim. The impugned order and judgment is, therefore, set aside only to enable the appellant to establish its claim. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order. The appeal stands disposed of in the above said terms.