2001 (1) TMI 317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt. [Order]. - The question for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner is whether M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (the respondent) was entitled to take Modvat credit on the basis of duplicate (or customer's) copy of challan issued for the goods supplied by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL for short). The Assistant Commissioner had held that this was not permiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t sub-rule (2) only refers to the original of the documents that are specified in sub-rule (4). The reasoning is sound. The manufacturer could not submit to the jurisdictional Superintendent the original duty paying documents as required under sub-rule (4), unless he had taken credit on their basis, as provided in sub-rule (2). The appeal, however, completely overlooks a significant fact. It is th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd the Board's circular have not been produced before me. It is, however, difficult to accept that they would have prescribed only the originals. The Commissioner (Appeals) has quoted from the letter dated 13-10-1993 of SAIL to the respondent. That letter says: "It was the practice of SAIL to issue one copy, pink copy marked "customer's copy" to the customer and the original challan is not handed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X