9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Bhopal dated 20-10-1998 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner ordering recovery of Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 5,62,736/- apart from imposing of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants as also interest under Section 11A of the Central Excise. 2. Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants had written to the suppliers asking them to reverse the credit. The supplier had accordingly done so and issued an invoice showing the particulars as also the amount of duty. It is not in dispute that the goods did not accompany the particular invoice. However, according to the appellants, this was only a procedural lapse for which credit could not be denied. Reliance has been placed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fers to the findings in the impugned order in which the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that the claim of the appellants that they had in fact received the inputs for job work under Rule 57F (3) and subsequently the said inputs were purchased by them from the supplier under the said invoice was merely a procedural lapse, has not been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) since the said proced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g documents. A plain reading of Rule 57G (3) does not bar the existence of a time gap between the receipt of the inputs and the issue of the invoice. It is not disputed by the appellant that their representatives had admitted the fact of non-receipt of the goods along with invoice No. 2737, dated 30-3-1996. However, they have also claimed that the inputs had been received from the same supplier ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
