9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Part of the Modvat has been denied on the ground that wordings `Duplicate for transporter are rubber stamped on the invoices and are not pre-printed. (c) Further quantum of Modvat has been denied on the ground that dealer s invoice and manufacturer s invoice are identical in respect of date, time and vehicle number and doubting the authenticity of the same. 2. I have heard the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri P.K. Dutta and learned Departmental Representative Shri R.K. Roy. 3. Modvat credit has been denied to the appellant on the ground that the duplicate copy produced by them is rubber stamped with the wordings `Duplicate for transporter whereas as per the various Trade Notices, the same was required to be pre-printed. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been laid down that the minor lapses of technical nature and procedural nature being rectifiable should not be made basis for disallowing the substantial benefit of law if otherwise flowing to the said assessees. I also observe that there is no danger of the invoices being misutilised as the procedure for endorsement had been done away with after 1994 with the introduction of the new system of the invoices. In the circumstances, I hold that there was no infirmity in the invoices stamped with rubber stamp and the ground of denial of Modvat credit was not a valid ground. Accordingly, I set aside this part of the order and allow the appeal to that extent. 4. The second point requiring consideration of the Tribunal is whether Modvat cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants reliance on Board s Circular No. 9617/95-CX, dated 13-2-1995 which is to the effect that in case of transit sale, invoices which may be in the assessees registered office can be endorsed by them in the name of their factory premises, is appropriate. In the instant case, the documents were in the name of branch office. The branch office could have endorsed the same in their own factory address. In the circumstances, it is only a procedural lapse, if at all, on the part of the appellants and cannot be made the basis for denial of Modvat credit to the appellants. Accordingly, I allow this part of the appeal also by setting aside the order of the lower authority to that extent. 5. As regards the denial of Modvat credit on the ground tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
