9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the manufacture of such yarn on job work for S. Kumar Synfab Ltd. The Mumbai office of the latter placed orders on Grasim Industries Ltd., Nagda for supply of viscose staple yarn. Five consignments of such fibre were sent from the factory of the manufacturer directly to Sri Ram Mills. The invoice issued for the manufacturer showed S. Kumar Synfab, Dewas. S. Kumar Synfab, Mumbai is a registered dealer and issued invoices under Rule 57GG to the assessee before us, who took credit of the duty shown to have been paid on these invoices. 3. The department was of the view that credit was wrongly taken. The notice issued to the assessee alleged that to apply the provisions of Rule 57GG, the dealer could issue invoices only when he has receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the notice for denying the credit is that goods were not received by the dealer who issued the invoices. According to him, the trade notice by the Commissioner (Mumbai-III 63/94 and Vadodara 111/94) indicates in entry 20 that credit cannot be denied only because the dealer who issued the invoice did not physically receive the goods. He further contends that the notice dated 22-7-97, which invoked the extended period, credit having been taken between September and December, 1994 validly invoked the extended period under sub-rule (1) of Rule 57-I. The allegation against the assessee on merits is that it did not receive the goods and except for this minor technical deficiency, it could issue invoices. The assessee would not act to its own in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been issued by the Board through its trade notices would apply to the facts before me. The clarification which is in the form of question and answer, which is reproduced below, seems to apply to the facts before me :- At times, orders are placed by the dealers on the manufacturers and instead of receiving the goods physically, the goods are also sold out and the manufacturing unit is instructed by the dealer to consign the goods to the final customer. Thus, the goods get despatched from the producing manufacturer to the final consumer manufacturer without the goods physically getting routed through the dealers from godown. Whether in such cases, there will be no difficulty in giving Modvat to their customers and whether any account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so significant as to render inapplicable the clarification that has been agreed by the Commissioner. Its presence does not really impinge upon the ground on which the credit has been denied that the dealer, S. Kumar Synfab, Mumbai did not physically receive the goods. The same consideration would also apply to the goods which were initially consigned to Madavnagar Cotton Mills and later on sent to the appellant. In the light of this finding, it is not necessary for me to address the argument on limitation. 10. In view of the finding on merits, the department s appeal asking for penalty on S. Kumar Synfab, Wadekar and Naik does not survive. 11. Appeal E/1774/2000 allowed. Appeal E/1709/2000 dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
