9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The allegation against the appellants was that they had availed Modvat credit on the strength of original and triplicate copies of invoices and not duplicate copy as per Rule 52A(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. According to the appellants, they had entered into an agreement dated 6-4-1994 with M/s. Bayer India Limited for the use of the appellants premises by M/s. Bayer India Limited for manufacturing and taking certain agro chemical formulations. These formulations, namely, insecticides, weedicides and fungicides, fall under Heading No. 3808.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. M/s. Bayer India Limited filed an application for exemption from licensing under Notification No. 27/92 on the ground that the goods were being manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the manufacturer where it is proved that the inputs were received under cover of invoices evidencing payment of duty. She submitted that the lapse, if any, was only procedural or technical which should not be made the basis for denying the appellants the substantive benefit of Modvat credit. She relied on the following decisions in support of her contention that where substantive requirement of the law have been satisfied, mere procedural lapses cannot be made the basis for defeating the basic purposes of the Modvat scheme or merely because a wrong address of name has been mentioned. 1. Mangalore Chemicals Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.) = 1993 (49) ECR 23 (SC); 2. Thermal Coatings (P) Ltd. v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants but were in the name of M/s. Bayer India Limited. He submitted that though it may not be in dispute that the appellants were manufacturing the goods on behalf of M/s. Bayer India Limited, nevertheless it was the appellants who were the manufacturers who were eligible to avail Modvat credit. Since the invoices were neither in their name nor endorsed in their name, ld. SDR submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly held that Modvat credit was not admissible in the case of the appellants. He, therefore, pleaded for rejection of the appeal. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions and have perused the record. In Bansal Containers (P) Limited, supra, the Tribunal had taken the view that the mere fact that the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
