9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ya Corporation (supplier of inputs), on the strength of which the credits totalling to Rs. 66,595/- had been taken, did not bear the marking, duplicate for transporter . The Bench, however, did no examine this aspect while holding that the above credit was admissible to the assessee. The only question that was considered by the Bench in the context of determining the admissibility of the above credit was whether the credit was liable to be allowed on blue copies of supplier s invoices. The applicant submits that the non-consideration of whether the marking duplicate for transporter was there or not on each of the invoices issued by M/s. Chayya Corporation is a mistake apparent from the record which requires to be rectified. 2. Ld. JDR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 66,595/- will still be admissible to the assessee. He prays for dismissal of the present application. 4. I have carefully examined the record and the submissions made today. It appears that, as rightly pointed out by ld. JDR, the show cause notice has inter alia alleged that the invoices of M/s. Chayya Corporation did not bear the marking duplicate for transporter . In their reply to the show-cause notice, the assessee denied this allegation and pleaded that the suppliers themselves had rubber-stamped the mark duplicate for transporter on their invoices. They also produced the supplier s certificate before the adjudicating authority. After examining all the available evidences, the adjudicating authority recorded a finding that, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first para of Final Order No. A/372/2002-NB (SM) will stand deleted and the following new paragraph [to be numbered as 1(a)] will stand inserted after paragraph No. 1: 1(a) This appeal further involves the Modvat credit of Rs. 66,595/- availed on the basis of invoices of two different colours white blue. The show-cause notice dated 17-5-95, alleged that the issuance of invoices in different colours for Modvat purposes is contrary to well established practice of trade and further that the invoices did not bear the mark, duplicate for transporter . As regards the first allegation, it is observed that, under the rules, there is no particular scheme of the colours prescribed to be adopted by the manufacturers/traders in respect of the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
