9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 5-1-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of capital goods was denied on the ground that intimation for installation of the machine was given late. 2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal in the case of Lalji Board Industries v. C.C.E. reported in 1999 (31) RLT 674 and in the case of Paharpur 3P v. C.C.E. reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 107 (Tribunal) = 2000 (90) ECR 287 (T). He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 3. Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that the machine, in question, was installed on 30-6-1996 and intimation was received by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Partapur, Meerut. The contention of the appellants is also that the Tribunal in the case of Lalji Board Industries and in the case of Paharpur 3P (supra) held that the delay in giving intimation in respect of installation of capital goods, cannot be the ground for denial of credit when there was substantial compliance with essential requirement of law. In the present case the machines were install ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
