9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We do not find it possible to accept the request for adjournment made on the ground that the officer concerned with the matter has suddenly fallen ill. On the hearing of the appeal fixed on 28-6-96, the appellant had asked for adjournment of the hearing of the appeal times. Adjournment was sought of the hearing on 2-1-2000 on the ground that its officer had resigned, and left, and its consu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants records that it had, in December 1994, issued invoices showing clearances of these goods each showing the consignor to be Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (TISCO for short), the consignee to be the appellant itself, and taken Modvat credit on the basis of these documents. The department found that various delivery challans of TISCO had been issued. However, there was no invoice issued by TI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit which cleared MS angles under conversion invoices on payment of excise duty to TISCO. These goods viz. MS angles were bought from TISCO by Sharda Ispat Ltd. (independent manufacturer). The goods were cleared by the conversion agent showing payment of duty and bought by the independent manufacturer who took the credit of the duty so paid. There is therefore no reason to deny credit. 4. We do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sharda Ispat Ltd. It shows the consignor to be T1SCO and consignee also to be TISCO. Details are filled against order, transporter truck no. etc. These are the documents on which credit was taken. Now the character of these documents is highly dubious. They were obviously not invoices that were issued by T1SCO. As we have noted that they were issued by the appellant and signed by the authorised s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. No evidence is produced in support of this claim. The appellant manufactured these goods and took credit of duty paid on them it would have to be in pursuance of a declaration under Rule 57A showing these to be inputs. Evidence of such declaration has not been produced. 6. Considered in their entirety, we do not find a basis for the appellant to take credit. No basis has been shown in the mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
