https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108468 The dispute arose when the department disallowed Modvat credit under Rule 57F(7) for quantities of spun yarn received back from job workers being less than P.S. fibre dispatched earlier. The adjudicating authority upheld the disallowance and penalty partially. The appellants argued that waste generated during conversion was cleared by the job worker, entitling them to re-credit under Rule 57F(6). The lack of documentation and evidence led to a remand for re-consideration, emphasizing the need for proper substantiation of waste clearance. The judgment underscores the significance of documentation and adherence to Rule 57F in determining credit admissibility. en-us Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:19:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108468 The dispute arose when the department disallowed Modvat credit under Rule 57F(7) for quantities of spun yarn received back from job workers being less than P.S. fibre dispatched earlier. The adjudicating authority upheld the disallowance and penalty partially. The appellants argued that waste generated during conversion was cleared by the job worker, entitling them to re-credit under Rule 57F(6). The lack of documentation and evidence led to a remand for re-consideration, emphasizing the need for proper substantiation of waste clearance. The judgment underscores the significance of documentation and adherence to Rule 57F in determining credit admissibility. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108468