2018 (2) TMI 1661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n manufacture of goods. 2. According to the adjudicating authority, it is only such credit that pertinent to inputs that have actually been used in manufacture that can be claimed and non-usage of any part of the inputs reported as variance has to suffer exclusion from availment under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. In the impugned order-in-appeal 92/BEL/2014-15 dated 28th November, 2014, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai held that '5.2 The CBEC Board vide Circular No.645/36/2002-CX dated 16/07/2002 on the subject admissibility of MODVAT/CENVAT credit on the input/capital goods which are written off being obsolete or unfit for use clarified at Para 3 which is as under: 3. The Board observes that the subject matter of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e theoretical calculations, had not submitted any documentary proof to substantiate their case. Even after specific findings of the adjudicating authority, it is expected from the appellant to produce the evidences in support of their contention in appeal but they failed to do so. Hence their contention cannot be accepted. In the absence of that I hold that the adjudicating authority had rightly observed that the inputs which have not been accounted as having been used in the manufacture of final products cannot be said to have been used in the manufacture of final product and credit availed on such inputs need to be reversed. Accordingly the order of the adjudicating authority needs no interference and has to be upheld. In the circumstance....