Hon’ble High Court relied on the case of  Rupa & Co. Ltd. V. Cestat, Chennai (2015 (324) ELT 295) wherein Division Bench of this Court decided a question of law about entitlement of ITC with respect to inputs used in the manufacturing process, under Section 9A and 2(g) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. In that case, Input in finished goods was marginally less as compared to input utilised by assessee and the department reverses the ITC on difference between the original quantity of input and the input contained in the finished product. The Hon’ble Bench held that some amount of consumption of the input was inevitable in the manufacturing process. Therefore, ITC should be granted on the original amount of input used notwithstanding that the entire amount of input would not figure in the finished product and also added: The expression ‘inputs of such finished product’ and ‘contained in finished products’ cannot be interpreted in a theoretical manner. It has to be understood in the context of the manufacturing process. If there is no dispute about the fact that every manufacturing process would automatically result in some kind of a loss such as evaporation, creation of by-products, etc. The total quantity of inputs that went into the making of the finished product represents the inputs of such products in entirety’. Considering the finding, Hon’ble High Court held: Reversal of ITC on account of loss by consumption of input which is inherent to manufacturing loss under section 17(5)(h) is misconceived. Such losses are not covered under Section 17(5)(h) of CGST Act. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.