Marginal input shortage and weighment variation do not justify denial of credit where the difference is minimal and attributable to handling loss.

Marginal shortage in inputs received at the factory, caused by transit or handling loss and differences in weighment at different weigh-bridges, did not justify denial of credit. The shortage was only 0.01%, and the variation was treated as within permissible limits of fluctuation, including differences attributable to calibration or weighment at separate weigh-bridges. On that basis, the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) was accepted and the order allowing credit was sustained, with the Revenue's challenge failing.

---

---

Issues: Whether marginal shortage in inputs received at the factory, attributable to transit or handling loss and differences in weighment at different weigh-bridges, justified denial of credit.

Analysis: The shortage was found to be extremely small, only 0.01%, and the difference in weight was treated as arising from weighment at different weigh-bridges. Such variation was regarded as within the permissible limits of fluctuation, and the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was accepted. The Tribunal also noted that minimal differences in weight attributable to calibration or weighment variations do not warrant denial of credit.

Conclusion: The marginal shortage did not justify denial of credit, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the order allowing credit was sustained.

---