9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tay of recovery of Rs. 1,43,224/- demanded by way of reversal of Modvat credit and penalty of Rs. 1,000/-. The aforesaid amount has been ordered to be reversed by the lower authorities on the grounds that (i) the dealer who issued the invoices in July and August 1994 have got themselves registered subsequently and not prior to issuing the invoices; (ii) the Modvat credit has been taken in February ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July, August and September 1994. He, therefore, submits in any case there is only a procedural deviation and the appellants had been given guidance by the local Central Excise Officers. Since the registration had been done subsequently, the credit per se had to be taken subsequently even though the receipt of the goods had been entered in RG 23A Part I Account. 1.2 He further submits that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the said Circular. In view of the same, I agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate that there is only a procedural deviation if any for not taking the credit within six months. The reasons advanced by the ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants for not taking the credit within six months in this case are also quite genuine inasmuch as the dealers who issued the invoices had not got themse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
