2017 (10) TMI 435

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ived by the appellant which were not equal to the goods sent to the job worker. Therefore, on short receipt of the job work goods (on differential quantity), the Revenue sought to deny Cenvat credit to the appellant on the ground that the same has not been received back from the job worker. Aggrieved from the said orders, the appellant is before me. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no allegation of diversion of inputs by the job worker. Moreover, the inputs were sent to the job worker and the same has been processed. During the processing of the said input certain loss incurred and due to those losses, the appellant received less quantity of processed goods. As there is no allegation of diversion of inputs or processe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pt in case of other consignments, the explanations offered by the appellant is not convincing. I find from the delivery orders that while issuing the same to the appellant, M/s. SECL also mentioned therein the name of Coal washery M/s. ACS (India) Ltd. - CHAKABURA for processing of coal. The said Coal washery after undertaking the process of beneficiation of coal had charged service tax thereon and cleared the same to appellant. The facts of the case are thus not much in dispute. It is an accepted fact that the coal was sent to Coal washery for processing of coal so that it can be used in the manufacturing process. The loss of weight due to removal of ash content, mud, fines occurred due to such coal washing process has to be considered as ....