2015 (2) TMI 873

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nbsp; For the Respondent : Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant was the job worker for M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. and was availing the benefit of credit of duty paid by M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd., the principal manufacturer. The appellant was clearing their final .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... invoices cannot be co-related to the original invoices. 4. During adjudication, the appellant contested both the allegations, which did not find favour with the lower authorities and the credit was denied along with interest and imposition of penalty. Hence the present appeal. 5. After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Shri K. Anand, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment order dated 27.8.2002. It is on account of finalization of the provisional assessment that the shortfall to the extent of Rs. 28,78 lakhs approximately was arrived at, which the principal manufacturer paid vide supplementary invoice dated 10.2.03.  As such, we agree with the learned advocate that this is not a case of any suppressed production or malafide intent so as to invoke Rule 7(1) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X