2002 (2) TMI 955

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ber (T)]. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dated 29-6-2001 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of uncoated paper and paperboard used for writing and printing. The respondents are availing the benefit of credit of duty paid on capital goods in terms of R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dit of Rs. 32,648/- on capital goods in which prior declaration under Rule 57T was not filed as well as credit of Rs. 1,41,692/- and Rs. 1,35,000/- on the strength of invoices which did not contain complete details. He submits that it was mandatory on the part of the manufacturer to file the declaration prior to receipt of capital goods and thus, credit was unauthorisedly taken. He, therefore, pra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mity in this finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. The second argument of the Revenue was that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed Modvat credit on the strength of invoices which did not contain complete details. However, when the Departmental Representative was requested to indicate as to which particulars were not indicated in the invoices he could not point out any such .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X