9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this appeal, the appellants are aggrieved by denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 42,629/- taken on inputs during June to October, 1995 on the strength of various invoices. 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. 3. It appears from the record that a part of the above credit was taken on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (in short, BPCL ) as dealer und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat credit. That authority has relied on the Board s Circular No. 76/76/94-CX., dated 8-11-94. 4. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, submits that the lower appellate authority has erroneously considered the invoices issued by IOCL (copies available in the appeal file) as dealer s invoices under Rule 57GG. Those invoices were issued by IOCL from their warehouse and the same should have been treated as ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argument that the ground on which the credit taken on the BPCL s invoices has been denied by the lower appellate authority is no longer tenable in the light of the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 (T-LB) = 2000 (40) RLT 575 (CEGAT-LB)]. He prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. 5. Ld. JDR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rger Bench case cited by ld. Counsel, it has been held that Modvat credit shall not be denied merely on the ground that all the particulars required to be mentioned in the invoices or in the Modvat declaration had not been furnished in those documents. The only ground on which the Modvat credit was denied by the lower appellate authority is that the particulars regarding manufacturer s name and nu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
