9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wa Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 14-3-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had confirmed the Order-in-Original dated 1-2-2000 of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the Modvat credit of Rs. 20,88,514/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the credit of only Rs. 98,74,540/- initially and further of Rs. 4,41,563/- on 8-11-1987 in pursuance of the Jaipur Commissionerate s Trade Notice No. 76/97. They also informed the A.C. that they had accordingly taken the credit of the remaining amount of Rs. 20,88,514/- and utilised the same for discharging duty liability on the clearance of the final product. The Deputy Commissioner, however, dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The details of the Modvat inputs in respect thereof had also been furnished by him before us and further argued that these details could be got verified from the competent authority and if found correct, the Modvat credit should be allowed to the appellants. 4. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has also not considered the Trade Notice No. 76/97 issued by the Jaipur Commissionerate on the strength of Board s instructions for allowing the Modvat credit on the inputs lying in stock or contained in finished goods or in the goods still in the process of manufacture. This fact has even not been even disputed by the learned S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
