9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant took credit on the strength of invoices issued by registered dealer. The invoices on which credits were taken did not contain certain information like printed running serial No. as required and there was no mention of vehicle through which goods were transported to them. Therefore, it is a fact that the invoices on which credit was taken were not the valid documents under the Modvat rules. The facts of the case have cited are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case as lapses noticed were of substantive in nature and not procedural one as claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is legally correct and does not need any interference . 2. Shri S.C. Shukia, Execu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh a particular truck should not stand in the way of allowing them modvat credit. 3. Ld. JDR, Shri Nayyar, on the other hand has drawn attention to the findings in the adjudication order passed by the Asst. Commissioner on 30-3-1997 which has analysed (para-6 of the order), the lapses and deficiencies in the invoices filed by the appellants for availing Modvat credit. He had noted that the dealers invoices did not contain the details of the mode of transportation, the registration number of the vehicle, the time of despatch of goods, all of which were required to be shown in terms of Notfn. No. 33/94, dated 4-7-1994 issued under Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules. The serial numbers given in the invoices were also found to be handwri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these details it would not be possible for the authorities to verify the actual receipt of the goods. In such circumstances, failure to give the details in the invoices cannot be taken as a mere procedural lapse. I am therefore of the view that disallowance of modvat credit and imposition of penalty was justified. The impugned order in relation to disallowance of modvat credit and penalty is accordingly confirmed. 5. In reply to a query from the Bench regarding 20% interest confirmed against the appellants under Rule 57-I(3), the Ld. JDR submitted that the said rule had come into force from 31-5-1995. Since the period during which the relevant invoices were issued was April - May, 1995, I am of the view that it is not a case where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
