9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 13-6-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Deputy Commissioner who disallowed them the Modvat credit of Rs. 7,820/- and of Rs. 20,230/- on the basis of invoices which did not contain particulars as per Notification No. 15/94, dated 30-3-1994, and of Rs. 44,066/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, allowed Modvat credit in respect of some other inputs with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. The Commissioner had confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner when appeal was filed before him, by the appellants. 3. Ld. Counsel has contended that the Modvat credit had been wrongly disallowed as the invoices were perfectly valid and the suppliers were duly registered. 4. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants. The registration of the suppliers of the raw material to the appellants did not matter much, when the very invoices issued by them were invalid being not in conformity with the Notification No. 15/94. 7. The denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 44,066/- on the glass bottles whose value was not included in the assessable value of the final product to the appellants also cannot be said to be in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
