2001 (6) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th the condition of predeposit of duty amount of Rs. 20,329.00 and penalty amount of Rs. 2,000.00, I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides. The Modvat Credit has been denied to the appellants in respect of a portion of the inputs received by them under the cover of dealer s Invoice No. 209, dated 2-6-1995. The said invoice covered a quantity of 14.620 M.T. The said quantity was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... isallowed. 3. Shri S.K. Roychowdhury, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that non-mention of the manufacturing invoice in the dealer s invoice was a mistake on the part of the dealer, which stands clarified by him in their subsequent letter written to the appellants. The dealer has subsequently given the invoice number, which ought to have been mentioned in the dealer s invoice. He subm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... him. As such, I am of the view that the said letter of the dealer should have been taken into consideration by the authorities below. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Order and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo decision after taking into consideration the said clarificatory letter of the dealer and after making necessary verification relating thereto. - - TaxTMI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X