9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacturer of excisable goods i.e. grey fabrics during the financial year 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 and had availed CENVAT credit on inputs viz. grey fabrics. The allegation against the appellant is that they have received short quantity of grey fabrics as compared to the actual quantity mentioned on the Central Excise invoice for the said period. It is also stated that they have also recovered processing charges from their suppliers on the actual quantity of fabrics received and duty paid accordingly, but not on the entire quantity as per Central Excise invoices. Therefore, it was alleged that the appellant had availed CENVAT credit on the entire quantity mentioned on the Central Excise invoices and not on the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, credit is available only on the actual quantity of the inputs received. Therefore, excess credit taken by the appellant is required to be reversed. To support his contention he relied on the decision of Asea Brown Baveri Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara - 1994 (74) ELT 897 (Tri.) and Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing v. CCE - 1999 (113 (ELT) 331(Tri.) 4. Heard both sides. 5. On careful examination of the submissions made by both the sides, I find in this case the allegation against the appellants are that the appellant has taken excess credit on inputs viz. grey fabrics i.e. as per Central Excise invoices issued by the supplier as compared to actual receipt of the grey fabrics. Therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsporter or the insurer of the cargo. 6. The Larger Bench has laid down the tests whether difference in weight in any particular case is on account of weighment on different scales at the despatch and receiving ends and whether the same is within the tolerance limits with reference to the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 the credit ccannot be denied, the said principle is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. I find that the measurement at the end of the supplier was found excess and at the end of appellant was found short which is well within the permissible limit of tolerance as per the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. There is no allegation against the appellant that the inputs have been diverted enroute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
