9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit of Rs. 46,547/-. It has been alleged that the appellant availed Cenvat credit vide RG-23A Pt. II entry Sl. No. 36 dated 30th June 2003 against Invoice No. 401 dated 17-8-02. It was contended by the appellant that the inputs covered by the said invoice were received by them and entered in RG 23 Part I on 18-8-2002. Subsequently, the input was sent to job worker for processing on 19-8-2002 under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g from the Range regarding the veracity of the submissions made by the assessee, the Ranger Superintendent vide letter C/No. 20- C.E/SF/R-IV/D-IV/2000/I, dated 1-4-2004 intimated that the assessee had sent 5.195 MT of inputs for job work vide challan No. 09 dated 19-8-2002. He has also informed that after the job work done the goods under reference were received back by the assessee on 9-9-2002 i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities below observed that the inputs have been properly accounted for in their RG 23A Pt. I register and credit taken on the basis of duty paying document. The Adjudicating authority verified use of inputs in the finished goods. So, there is no reason to deny the credit on the ground of delay to take credit in RG 23A Part II register. 5. In view of the above facts, the impugned order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
