9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n took a Modvat credit of Rs. 87,161 .88 on the basis of the original invoice issued by the input supplier to the Appellants herein, since the duplicate copy of the invoice meant for the transport carrier had been lost. The invoice was dated 4-6-1994. On 30th January, 1995, the Appellants herein were issued a show cause notice as to why the credit taken by them as aforesaid be not denied to them . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the duplicate copy of the invoice. Therefore, the Modvat credit was denied. 1.2 On appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), the Appellants did not succeed. 1.3 It may be mentioned at this stage that sub-rule 2(A) in Rule 57G was introduced w.e.f. 20th May, 1994. 1.4 Hence this Appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate Shri K.K. Banerjee for the Appellants submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit, submits the learned Advocate and only after verification etc. by the Assistant Collector if he is not satisfied about the correctness of the Modvat credit then only he can deny it. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be set aside and the suitable relief be granted to the Appellants. 3. Learned SDR Shri K.K. Biswas, on the other hand, submits that the lower authorities have taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assistant Collector has the authority to disallow the Modvat credit and not otherwise. Mere argument of the Assistant Collector in the present Order-in-Original that he is not convinced by the statement of the Appellant that the duplicate copy of the invoice has been lost, I would only say that he is refusing to get convinced without making any enquiry which is not proper on the part of any q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
