9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Nikhil Nichani, Advocate for the respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the appellants have cleared inputs as such showing quantity of clearance in the invoice to their sister concern. Out of the quantity mentioned in the invoice, some quantity was returned back to the appellants. The appellants at the end of the month, on the actual quantity which remained with the sister concern, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such. In the present case, the respondent cleared 22.970 and 34502 MT and the same was shown in the invoice no.5018/37/00 and 13742/13/01 respectively, but while paying duty on monthly basis they discharged duty on the net quantity after adjustment of the returned quantity and raised invoice accordingly. The case of the department is that whatever actual quantity cleared by the appellants, irrespe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied to their sister concern they have discharged duty at the end of the month for which they issued invoice. He submits that though at the time of clearance higher quantity was cleared but certain quantity was returned back which is not under dispute and at the end of the month whatever net input quantity remained with the sister concern the invoice for the same was issued and the duty was paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tity which has come back to the appellants cannot be considered as removal of input and no duty can be demanded on that quantity. Therefore, the demand on this ground is not sustainable. Therefore, I do not consider it necessary to address other issues on which Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld. Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Cross objection a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
