9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 776.00) on Sacks Bangs". Both the invoices have been issued by M/s. Tirupati Jute Industries Pvt. Limited, Howrah in the name of M/s. Howrah Mills Co. Ltd., 493, C.G.T. Road, Howrah (South). Therefore it appears that Modvat credit taken of Nos. 11 12, dated 1-6-1995 on these invoices is not admissible to M/s. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., Bazpur." 2. The Assistant Collector on the observation that the documents were not in terms of Rule 57G, denied the Modvat and confirmed the demand. The Collector upheld the denial, hence the present appeal. 3. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate submitted that Rule 57G at the material time prescribed invoices issued under Rule 52A as the eligible documents for taking credit. Although the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 454 (S.C.). 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also seen the citations and the Rule as existed at the material time. The relevant portion of the sub-rule (2) of Rule 57G at the material time reads as under :- Rule 57G(2) (2) A manufacturer who has filed a declaration under sub-rule (1) may, after obtaining the acknowledgment aforesaid, take credit of the duty paid on the inputs received by him : Provided that no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of an invoice, issued under Rule 52A, an AR-1, or triplicate copy of a Bill of Entry, a certificate issued by an Appraiser of Customs posted in Foreign Post Office or any other document as may be prescribed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 595 (Tribunal) it was held that since the invoice was a substitute for the gate pass, it could be endorsed and still continue to be valid document under Notification No. 16/94-C.E. This judgment is not applicable in this case because the invoice issued by M/s. Tirupati Jute Industries Pvt. Limited was not endorsed by the latter in the appellants name. The proviso permitted the Government of India to stipulate other documents. Such stipulation was made by the Government of India by issue of a Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 and, thereafter, by virtue of Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994. In these two notifications the invoices issued by a distributor of the dealer who had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to. 8. The two sets of invoices read with the lorry receipts would suggest that the goods were transported in the same lorry. This would have supported the appellants case if the goods had moved from the manufacturers premises and where the dealers invoice was also available. Here from the so-called dealer s invoice it would appear the goods were manufactured not by M/s. Tirupati Jute Industries Pvt. Ltd. but by M/s. Howrah Mills Co. Ltd. Therefore, the advantage of the Ministry s instructions can also not be available to the assessee. 9. Shri Garg submitted that the receipt of the duty paid goods in the assessees premises is not in doubt and, therefore, the benefit need not be denied. I do not see much force in this argument. For a cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
