2002 (2) TMI 1142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 28/30 November, 1998 issued by M/s. Tannen Poles & Tubes (P) Ltd., Ludhiana. Copies of these four invoices are available on record. On the top margin of each of these documents "first stage dealer" is seen printed. Each of these documents bears the seal of the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Ludhiana, beside an initial, purportedly that of the Superintendent. It is clear from the documents that these were issued by M/s. Tannen Poles & Tubes (P) Ltd. as second stage dealer. The department however, proposed to disallow the Modvat credit taken on the strength of these invoices, alleging that the, invoices were not shown to have been issued by second stage dealer and not pre-authenticated by the proper officer of Central Excise. The prop .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods as also receipt of the goods and utilisation thereof in the process of manufacture of final products have been fully satisfied by the manufacturer of the final products :- (i)      M/s. Indian Hume Pipes v. CCE [1998 (103) E.L.T. 77 (Tribunal)] (ii)     Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (106) E.L.T. 104]. 5. On pre-authentication issue, ld. Counsel submits that the adjudicating authority has held in its order that the invoices had been pre-authenticated as required under Notification No. 23/95-C.E., dated 30-5-95 (as amended) issued under Rule 57G. This finding of the adjudicating authority has not been interfered with by the lower appellate authority. Counsel, therefore, prays for sett .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ond Stage Dealer to the appellants and that the words 'First Stage Dealer' happened to be mis-printed on the document. Since the defect has been cured by the assessee, the same will no longer be available to the department as a ground for denial of the Modvat credit. There is no dispute of the duty-paid nature of the inputs, nor is there any case for the Revenue that the inputs were not received in the appellant's factory and utilised in the process of manufacture of final products. 8. In the result, it is held that the entire credit in question is admissible to the assessee and that there is no ground for imposition of any penalty on them. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X