9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odvat credit of Rs. 22,826.08/- taken on the strength of original invoices was not admissible. 2. The facts are that the appellants are manufacturer of Hard Boiled Confectionery.They were availing credit of duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of confectionery. The deptt. alleged that modvat credit of duty cannot be taken on the strength of invoices issued by consignment agent. The deptt. also alleged that the appellants have taken modvat credit on the strength of original invoices issued in the month of April 1994. Further it was also alleged that in some cases, modvat credit has been taken on the basis of endorsed manufacturer's invoice which was not admissible. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the clarification given under this Notification shall be applicable in respect of documents issued on or after 1-4-1994. He submits that the appellants have submitted that duplicate copy of invoice was lost and therefore, modvat credit was taken on the strength of original copy of the invoice. He submits that in view of the Tribunal's decision in similar case, they were fully covered by the ratio of that decision of the Tribunal. 5. The ld.Counsel submitted that the appellants availed modvat credit of Rs. 42,500/- on the basis of invoice issued by dealers coupled with endorsed invoice of manufacturer. He submitted that clarification under Notification No. 32/94, dated 4-7-1994 was not applicable in their case inasmuch as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacturers were not the document on the strength of which modvat credit could be taken. He submitted that having regard to the above submission, modvat credit has rightly been denied which was taken on the strength of original invoices or manufacturer's endorsed invoices. 8. Heard the submissions of both sides. On careful consideration of the submission made by both sides, I find that the department has disallowed modvat credit taken on the strength of three types of documents which are as under : (a) Credit taken on the strength of gate passes endorsed after 31-3-1994. In the instant case, I find that gate passes were issued before 31-3-1994 but were endorsed in favour of the consignee after 1-4-1994 but before 30-6-1994. I fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t received, I hold that the modvat credit of Rs. 21,200/- taken on the strength of original invoices is admissible to the appellants. (c) The third type of document on which modvat credit has been denied are endorsed manufacturer's invoices and invoices issued by consignment agent. On this document, an amount of Rs. 42,500/- has been denied. I find that the Govt. of India's orders were clear that modvat credit could be taken on the strength of invoices issued by the manufacturer or their wholesale dealers. In the instant case, I find that not only the manufacturer's invoice were endorsed but supplier also issued their invoices. The suppliers no doubt were dealers and can be treated as wholesale dealers for the purpose of Section 2(k) inasm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
