9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efers to the Order-in-Original under dispute. Ld. Advocate submitted that the main appeal could be taken up for disposal today. Shri Nank Chand, JDR, had no objection. The case was accordingly taken up for final hearing. 2. The dispute relates to whether the two gate passes under which Modvat Credit was taken were eligible documents or not. Shri Rajesh Chibber, Ld. Advocate submitted that the duplicate copy of invoice No. 5, dated 8-4-1994 issued by M/s. Prakash Platinum Ltd., Bombay was lost in transit. An application was made to the Assistant Collector for taking credit on the strength of the original invoice on 3-8-1994. The Credit had earlier been taken by them after informing the suppliers of the loss vide their letter dated 20-4-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., 1986 (26) E.L.T. 57. 3. Shri Nanak Chand, Ld. JDR stated that where the documentations were not as prescribed under the relevant rules the credit taken thereunder amounts to wrong and irregular credit. He justified the orders of the lower authority. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. As regards the denial of Modvat credit taken on the basis of original copy of the invoice, I find that both the lower authorities had presumed wrongly that the Assistant Collector had no power to accept the original copy of the invoice as the eligible document before amendment of Rule 57G. Loss of eligible documents in transit is not an unusual phen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. The plea of the appellants that the invoice from Sam International could be disregarded and credit could be allowed on the strength of original Gate Pass 1 does have force. The gate pass has been endorsed twice which was permissible at the material time. The gate pass shows the link between the original manufacturer and the present appellants. The fact of physical receipt of the input is not in doubt, therefore, the observation that an invoice which represents separate financial transaction does not refer to the Gate Pass 1 is not sufficient to deny Modvat credit. 8. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The lower orders are set aside. The issue is remanded to the Assistant Collector who shall proceed to permit availment of Modvat Cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
