TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 889
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the inputs that were shown to have been consumed in the RG 23A Part I was allegedly in excess of that shown in the stock ledger. Accordingly, the credit taken on these inputs was held to be ineligible for not having been properly accounted for or evidenced to have been used in manufacture of dutiable goods. The show cause notice issued to the appellant comprised, in addition, and other allegations which were confirmed in the first round of adjudication. In proceedings before the Tribunal, most of these had been set aside and the dispute relating to the ineligible credit had been referred back to the original authority with the direction, viz., 'If the appellant can explain the use of inputs from the entries made in the stock led....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowed in maintenance of the 'stock ledger' while the RG 23A Part-I did not. It is contended that the adjustment entries of 'supplementary issues' as well as the 'returns' were recorded at the end of each month in the 'stock ledger' without corresponding entries in the RG 23A Part-I. It is further contended that there has been no unauthorised use of inputs on which credit had been taken and that there is no allegation that the appellant had unauthorisedly used the inputs or remove the sale clandestinely. The non-applicability of rule 57I(1) and 57I(2) has also been agitating since these pertain to irregularity in taking the credit and the entries having been faithfully recorded in the stock ledger. The finding in the impugned order that, f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Counsel pointed out that, on similar lines, the Tribunal decided the disputes in Zincollied (India) v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (297) ELT 370 (Tri-Ahmd)] and Central Cables Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2011 (272) ELT 735 (Tri-Mumbai)]. 5. Learned Authorised Representative countered with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad v. Greaves Cotton Ltd [2008 (225) ELT 198 (Bom)] which held that a reading of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 would make it clear that, if the assessee claims entitlement to credit, the burden of proof is upon the assessee to prove the admissibility of CENVAT credit and also disapproved of the view taken by th....