9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present case is on two grounds. One, the appellant took modvat credit on inputs based on the original copy of invoices since the duplicate copies had been lost, during the period October, 1994. This was, however, done without the permission of the Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly, it was considered a violation of Rule 57G and the credit denied. The second issue was that the appellant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted capital goods. In this context, he referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47, in particular para 39. 3. The learned DR has pointed out that the position relating to taking of modvat credit based on copies of invoice other than duplicate copy remains settled by the order of the Tribunal (Larger Bench) in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as capital goods used in manufacture etc. 4. The issue relating to claim for modvat credit on inputs based on the original copy of invoice remains decided against the appellants by the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (Tri.-LB) = 2000 (37) RLT 501. Modvat credit on polyurethane sheet is also not permissible since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
