9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by Partha Banerjee, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.B. Agarwal, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. A common issue is involved in both these appeals. Therefore, they are being taken together for hearing. 2. The appellants filed these appeals against the impugned Orders whereby the demands under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacture of the exempted wagons. The appellants submitted that the invoices under which the inputs are received to show that the credit is availed in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the wagons on which the duty has been paid and they are maintaining separate records to that effect. The appellants also submitted that the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned Orders confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demands are not sustainable. 4. Learned Jt. C.D.R., Shri B.B. Agarwal appearing for the Revenue submitted that it is not possible to verify from the entries made in the Bin Cards whether the input credit was availed or not as there is no cross-reference to the invoice numbers. The contention is also that there is no reference/identification marks of input documents in the said Bin Cards and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the price of the exempted goods. In the present case, we find that the appellants were not taking credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. As per records, the credit was availed only in respect of the inputs which are used in the manufacture of goods on which duty is being paid. The appellants produced copies of all the invoices on which credit has not been availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
