9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, 28 and 121, dated 20-4-1994, 21-4-1994 and 4-5-1994 is allowed. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel tubes and pipes. They are availing facility of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules; that during the course of checking of the RT 12 returns relating to April and May, 1994 the departmental officers found that the respondents had taken credit amounting to Rs.2,16,406.00 on the basis of 11 original copies of invoices issued under Rule 52A; that the department alleged that this credit was wrongly taken and therefore issued a show cause notice asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit of Rs. 2,16,406.00 should not be disallowed to them and why the amount should no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od 20-4-1994 to 4-5-1994; that transporter copy (duplicate invoice) was lost and therefore the respondents took credit on the strength of original invoice. He submits that there is no dispute about the receipt of the goods; that the invoice clearly shows their name and address; that there was no provision for endorsement of invoice and therefore there was no possibility of transporter copy of the invoice to be misused by anyone else inas- much as in the invoice the name of the respondents and address appeared. He submits that looking to these facts that Government of India issued Notification 23/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 20-5-1994 clarifying that in case duplicate copy of the invoice is lost credit under the Modvat scheme can be taken on the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the AC has been incorporated. Moreover even before this amendment, if the gate pass was lost in transit, it was open to the AC to make inquiries and satisfy himself before allowing the credit. What was earlier implied has now been made explicit by introducing sub-rule 2(A). In these circumstances, sub-rule 2(A) can only be considered as clarificatory in nature providing no procedure which could be deemed to have restrospective effect. 6. Having regard to the fact that the new system was introduced for the first time with effect from 1-4-1994 and that Notification 23/94-C.E. (N.T.) was issued on 20-5-1994 I agree with the finding of this Tribunal as reproduced above and hold that Notification 23/94-C.E. (N.T.) can be treated as clarifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
