TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was produced by the appellant to the effect that the same input was received by the supplier and credit was availed thereof and in their RG 23 Part II register. Without this evidence it is difficult to accept that the removal of input by the supplier is u/r 3(5) of CCR - Ld. Counsel in his argument submitted that appellant will approach the supplier and try to get the proof of taking the credit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e supplier. 2. Shri. Sananda Khairnar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that though the format of the invoice is dealer s invoice but supplier had issued this invoice in the capacity of manufacturer as manufacturer registration number is appearing on the invoice. The duty shown to have been paid in the invoice has been debited in the RG 23 Part II register of the supplier the same has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, Shri. N.N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He further submits that first of all invoices issued by the supplier is of dealer s invoice and since the entry of these invoice has not been shown in the RG 23 Part II register of the supplier. The duty shown in the invoice has been passed on is without any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. However no evidence was produced by the appellant to the effect that the same input was received by the supplier and credit was availed thereof and in their RG 23 Part II register. Without this evidence it is difficult to accept that the removal of input by the supplier is under Rule 3(5) of CCR. Ld. Counsel in his argument submitted that appellant will approach the supplier and tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
