ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Heard ld. JDR.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant.
3. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the credit of Rs. 18,380/- was disallowed on the ground that the appellant received less inputs than mentioned in the invoices, however, taken the credit on the quantity mentioned in the invoices. A penalty of Rs. 5000/- is imposed on the appellant.
4. The contention of the appellant in the appeal memo is that no credit can be denied in respect of shortage, which was negligible as the shortage may be occurred during shifting of the material one transport to another.
5. In this case, the appellant admitted the fact that they received less inputs than mentioned in the invoices, the inputs are like frame complete, lid Assay, regulator window these are parts of motor vehicles and it cannot be said that short receipt and quantity can be misplaced during the transit. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order held that the appellant has taken the plea that the inputs initially received short were received later on but they have shown their inability to prove the same. It is a settled law that a manufacturer can avail the benefit of credit in respect of the duty paid on inputs, which are used in the factory in the manufacture of dutiable final product. The credit in respect of the inputs, which are not received in the factory, in the present case, admitted by the appellant, is not admissible. I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court on 26-5-06)