TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 20,000.00 and Rs. 25,000.00. The appellants are only challenging the denial of credit of Rs. 9,16,914.00 in appeal No. 246/05 and credit of Rs. 54,23,531 in appeal No. EDM-247/05. Further during arguments the appellants fairly submitted that they are not contesting the denial of credit of Rs. 1,45,844.00, Rs. 51,803 and Rs. 7,447 which was denied on the ground that the credit is availed without invoices, availed on the strength of photo copy and in respect of ineligible inputs Denoritt. 4. The appellants are challenging the denial of credit as listed below :- Sl. No. Issue Appeal No. (Amount Rs.) 1. Short receipt of Runners/risers EDM-246/05 Rs. 1,28,518/- 2. Credit availed on job work material without receipt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant received less quantity of goods sent to the job worker hence the demand is rightly made. 7. We find that Tribunal in the case of Bharat Radiators (supra) held that the credit cannot be denied in respect of the process loss at the hand of job worker. In view of the above we find as the Revenue has not denied the fact that the quantity which was found short on account of processing hence the demand is not sustainable hence set aside. 8. In respect of the demand at Sl. No. 2, the contention of appellant is that there is duplication of demand in annexure 10 of show cause notice. The demand is made on the ground that the goods sent to job worker was received short and in respect of the same challans in the annexure-I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich has been paid by the supplier of the inputs and even after issuance of notice the appellants submitted that now they are able to produce the necessary evidence to show that proper duty has been paid by the supplier of the inputs. In these circumstances the demand of Rs. 1,41,890/- and Rs. 1,02,084.00 is set aside in both the appeals and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh and appellants are at liberty to produce the evidence in support of the claim. 14. At Sl. No. 4 the amount of credit of Rs. 1,818/- was denied. During arguments, the appellants submitted that in view of the small amount, the appellants are not pressing this demand. In view of this the impugned order is upheld in respect of den....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as per the provisions of Central Excise Rules the duty payment particulars are to be given in the invoices as the dealer has not mentioned the duty payment particulars. 19. We find that in this case the particulars regarding duty paid by the manufacturers are mentioned in the dealer's invoice. This fact is not in dispute therefore in view of the earlier order the denial of credit is not sustainable hence set aside. 20. Denial of credit at Sl. No. 7 is in respect of Spoon, ARN used in furnace on the ground that the same are not inputs. We find that the credit was denied on Spoon and ARN. The case of the appellant is that the same are used in furnace. During argument the appellant failed to show any technical material in supp....