2024 (10) TMI 813

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the manufacture of goods to be used by the principal manufacturer. 2. Shri Mrugesh Pandya, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that even though the address of the job worker is given in the invoice since the goods were used for the manufacture of goods belonging to the principal manufacturer, credit cannot be denied. He further submits that the name of the appellant is correctly mentioned in the invoices. He submits that there was a limited allegation in the show cause notice about the mention of address, however, both the lower authorities have traveled beyond the scope of show cause notice and decided that there is no evidence about receipt and use of the inputs. Since this ground is beyond the show cause noti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Authority of India Ltd. 2008 (232) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.). Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Versus Toyo Engineering India Limited-2006 (201) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.). Reliance Securities Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II-2019(20) G.S.T.L. 265 (Tri. - Mumbai). 3. Shri Rajesh K Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that in the show cause notice the only allegation is that the inputs used in the job worker premises and the address of job worker is mentioned in the invoices. We find that only because the invoices bear the address of the job ....