TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are manufactured on the basis under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR, 2004, it is not mandatory on the part of the appellant to carry out in manufacturing activity. Hence, it is not under dispute that the appellant have discharged the Central Excise duty liability in respect of job worked goods, irrespective whether the appellant themselves carry out the manufacturing activity on such job work goods or otherwise, they are legally entitled for the CENVAT credit in respect of inputs sent to the job worker in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) have not considered the Octroi receipt in defence of the appellant which is very vital evidence as to conclude the present matter the same nee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that the goods shown in the invoices were not received by the job worker of the appellant. The adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) held that in view of the above evidence that the input were not received by the job worker therefore denied the CENVAT credit. 3. Shri Rajesh Ostwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant have submitted Octroi receipts in respect of almost 19 invoices. The said Octroi receipt bears the details of invoice of which credit was availed. Therefore a general report given by the Bhilad Check Post cannot be accepted. He submits that since a fire was broken in the factory most of the records were destroyed therefore they could trace 19 number of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no condition that the appellant carried out manufacturing activity in their factory. He submits that it is permissible under law to send the input for job work directly from the supplier of input to the job worker so long processed goods have been cleared on payment of duty by the appellant, CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the ground that appellant have not carried out manufacturing process. He submits that the Octroi receipt is the very vital evidence to establish that the goods have been transferred and received at the premises of the job worker, which had been discarded by both the lower authorities on the ground that the same was not produced during the investigation of the case. 4. Shri M.R. Melvin, learned Superintendent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch vital evidence which is issued by the Government Authority why it cannot be submitted at the stage while replying to show-cause notice. If the adjudicating authority had any doubt about the authenticity of the Octroi receipt, he was free to get it verified from the concerned issuing Authority of the Octroi receipt but refusal to deal with such Octroi receipt is serious violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication. As regard the dispute about description of goods, I am of the view that merely because the description mentioned in some of the invoices as SSCR coils does not prove that appellant's job worker have not received Patta/Patti for the reason that even Patta/Patti may or may not be in coil or strips form. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
