9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. This Stay Application arises out of Appeal No. E/1266/2001/NB/DB which has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has confirmed the Order-in-Original dt. 31-12-1999 of the Asstt. Commissioner who disallowed the Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 47,65,679.00 to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to them. If the suppliers mentioned wrong time of removal and the mode of transport in the invoices they could not be penalised being bona fide buyers. The Asstt. Commissioner however did not accept this version of the appellants and disallowed the Modvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the order of Asstt. Commissioner. 3. Ld. Counsel has contended that the appellants have a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. 5. We have gone through the records and heard both the sides. 6. The mere perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shows that the Modvat credit has been denied to the appellants on the ground that the invoices on which they claimed were not valid, as the goods were shown to have been removed twice in the same truck of two different invoices. The time of removal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odvat credit thereon but having failed to do so, they cannot take advantage of their own negligence. Therefore, in our view, it is not a fit case to allow total waiver of the pre-deposit of the Modvat credit amount, to the appellants. 8. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the nature of issue involved and the financial hardship as pleaded by the ld. Counsel, we direct the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
