9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.00 respectively. The Modvat had been disallowed on the ground that the invoices are in the name of different persons other than the appellants and not registered dealers on the date of supply of the goods. Even the destination has not been shown properly in the invoices which could not be considered proper for claim under Rule 57H. In the second case, the Adjudicating Authority disallowed Modvat credit on the ground that the invoices in the order did not fulfil the conditions mentioned in the Board's Circular No. 96/6/95-C.E., dated 13-2-1995 as these invoices were issued by unregistered dealers. 2. The appellants had submitted before Commissioner that their claim under Rule 57H had been rejected without issuing a show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs and Form 31 issued under Sales Tax Law. This evidence has not been controverted by the Department and hence there is no warrant for denial of Modvat credit. He also stated that there was only one allegation in the show cause notice that the invoices were not in the name of the appellant. However, in all the manufacturer's invoices, the destination was shown as Simbhaoli and the trucks/lorries on which clearances were made were also unloaded in Simbhaoli as per the transporter's G.Rs. They submitted that the substantive benefit of Modvat cannot be denied on technicalities. In this regard they relied on the following judgments : 1. Friends Enterprises v. Collector of Central Excise, 1984 (16) E.L.T. 360 (Tribunal) = 1984 ECR 1016. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the procedures were likely to lead to fraud, then Modvat can be denied as it leads to administrative inconvenience. In this regard, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corpn. as reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (S.C.). 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions, I agree with the submissions of the Advocate that the order is not a speaking order. The various points raised by the appellants in their appeal memo before the original authorities have been neatly recorded. However, there has been no findings at all. It is incumbent on the adjudicating authority to deal with the grounds and give a reasoned order and restrain from use of harsh language. The use of ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that some pull and weight had been used in favour of the appellant from behind. We are not justified in passing these strictures against the trial Judge in dealing with the present case, judicial experience shows that in adjudicating upon the rival claims brought before the courts it is not always easy to decide where truth lies. Evidence is adduced by the respective parties in support of their conflicting contentions and circumstances are similarly pressed into service. In such a case, it is, no doubt, the duty of the Judge to consider the evidence objectively and dispassionately, examine it in the light of probabilities and decide which way the truth lies. The impression formed by the Judge about the character of the evidence will ult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides and we are satisfied that the imputations made by the High Court against the impartiality and the objectivity of the approach adopted by the trial Judge are wholly unjustified. It is very much to be regretted that the High Court should have persuaded itself to use such extravagant language in criticising the trial Court particularly when our conclusion in the present appeal shows that the trial Court was right and the High Court was wrong. But even if we had not upheld the findings of the trial Court, we would not have approved of the unbalanced criticism made by the High Court against the trial Court. No doubt, if it is shown that the decision of the trial Court in a given case is a result of corrupt motive, the High Court must cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppears to be unreasonable or improbable as being false and perjured. We have noticed that the judgment of the High Court shows a tendency to regard every witness whose evidence the High Court did not feel inclined to accept as a perjuror and a conspirator. This approach again may tend to show with respect, either lack of experience or absence of judicial poise and balance. It is because the judgment of the High Court showed these glaring infirmities that Mr. Sastri told us at the very outset that in the present appeal, all that he proposed to do was to defend the respondent but not the judgment of the High Court which has been pronounced in his favour." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is a need for use of temperate language i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
