TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the initial process of manufacture was rejected at very beginning of manufacturing. If so, same cannot be invoice as in the very same description. Though, there is a slight discrepancy in the description in invoices, it is an admitted fact that Copper of 1028.8 Kgs were supplied by suppliers, it was returned for Job work due to defect and on completion of Job work, it is sent back to the appellant for further processing vide Invoice dated 03.02.2017 by charging only the labour charges. Moreover, during investigation there is no discrepancy pointed out regarding the stock of raw material maintained by the appellant and the return submitted for the relevant period shows proper transaction of said material as claimed by the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T credit involved on the said quantity and instructed the supplier to convert the copper strips to the required width and size and to return to appellant on JOB work basis. He further submitted that the said material was returned vide Invoice dated 03.02.2017 and the supplier charged Rs.46,656/- towards Job charges. From the above, it is evident that the inputs were carried out within 180 days of being sent to the Job work and they have complied with the conditions stipulated under Rule4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Thereafter, based on an Audit observation, respondent issued SCN as to why CENVAT credit of Rs.57,630/- irregularly availed on the rejected inputs should not be demanded and recovered with interest and penalty should not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Sample ED-192 if cut out into small pieces during the initial process of manufacture was rejected at very beginning of manufacturing. If so, same cannot be invoice as in the very same description. Though, there is a slight discrepancy in the description in invoices, it is an admitted fact that Copper of 1028.8 Kgs were supplied by suppliers, it was returned for Job work due to defect and on completion of Job work, it is sent back to the appellant for further processing vide Invoice dated 03.02.2017 by charging only the labour charges. Moreover, during investigation there is no discrepancy pointed out regarding the stock of raw material maintained by the appellant and the return submitted for the relevant period shows proper transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
