9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. Pushkarna, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 29-12-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who had affirmed the Order-in-Original dated 13-9-99 of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the Modvat credit of Rs. 5,74,296/- under Rule 57-I of the Rules and imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the impugned order. 3. The learned Counsel has contended that the genuineness of the bills of entry Nos. 7099 and 135 had never been contested by the department and the goods even were released to the appellants provisionally covered by both those entries on execution of bonds and those bonds even had been later on cancelled. Therefore, mere cuttings in the bills of entries, could not le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned JDR has simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 6. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 7. Admittedly, the goods covered by two disputed bills of entry, referred to above, were released to the appellants on execution of bonds. They purchased the goods covered by these documents on high sea sale basis from Kanpur Wool Industries. There is nothing on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department. Therefore, in my view, the Modvat credit of Rs. 5,02,872/- on the strength of both the disputed bills of entry nos. 7099 dated 20-4-95 and 135 dated 1-5-95 had been wrongly disallowed to the appellants. They are entitled to get the Modvat credit of this amount. 8. Similarly, the Modvat credit of Rs. 71,424/- had been also improperly disallowed to the appellants. This invoice was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
