9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. Denial also on the ground that there is difference in figures of certain inputs from their balance sheet and the RG-23A Part-1 register as they have shown higher figures in the quantity of purchases and utilization thereof by the appellant - Held that:- The appellant has not explained certain inputs received by them were cleared as such and on payment of duty. This fact has been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) but inputs have been cleared as such are not the inputs received by the appellant then from where the inputs received by the appellant which have been cleared on payment of duty. This has not been explained by the Revenue - the explanation given by the appellant is acceptable - credit cannot be denied. Rejection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The quantity of purchases of raw material recorded in RG-23A Part-1 register as well as balance sheet, some discrepancy was found on the basis of examination of records. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to avail credit of ₹ 1,55,500/- as description of the goods in the invoices of dealer did not match with the description given by the manufacturers of the goods. Further, the credit sought to be denied on the ground that there is difference in figures of certain inputs from their balance sheet and the RG-23A Part-1 register as they have shown higher figures in the quantity of purchases and utilization thereof by the appellant. Further, the credit on certain inputs sought to be denied on the ground that they were shown as purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o avail credit. (b) denial of credit on the basis of figures of RG-23A Part-1 and figures shown in the balance sheet of purchases. 6. On perusal of the records, I find that the appellant has explained the discrepancy of figures in reply to the show cause notice but the same was not considered by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) has given vague finding on the subject. The appellant has not explained certain inputs received by them were cleared as such and on payment of duty. This fact has been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) but inputs have been cleared as such are not the inputs received by the appellant then from where the inputs received by the appellant which have been cleared on payment of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
