9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , appeared for Revenue. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellants pleaded that the appellants are manufacturers of M.S. Ingots in their factory at Hyderabad. During the period from June 1991 to January 1994, they received scrap from a dealer at Calcutta. The scrap was purchased by the dealer from the handling agent viz. Gouri Shankar Bihani of TISCO stockyard, from time to time during the material period. The handling agent/consignment agent operating TISCO yard, issued TISCO Bills/Invoices-cum-challans for whole lots received from TISCO, Jamshedpur, to the dealer. The identity of the receipted goods both with reference to description and quantity was left undisturbed. The appellants purchased the scrap from the dealer. The dealer endors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed by the Tribunal in their Final Order No. 962/1998, dated 19-5-1998, and the Commissioner has given clear finding that both these decisions are not applicable in the present case. He stated that in the present case, as has been observed by the Commissioner, the goods were first sold to a dealer who in turn sold the consignment to the appellants. The permission granted by Government to TISCO cannot be percolated down to the consignee of the consignment agent of TISCO. The judgment in the case of M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd. reveal that it was the degree of integrity of document which evidently flowed from TISCO to its stockyard, was the prime concern of the learned Bench to convince themselves about permissibility of the credit. In the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, dated 3-5-1991 was issued by M/s. Gouri Shankar Bihani, the consignment agent of TISCO to M/s. Vikas Steel, Calcutta, who endorsed the carbon copy of the said challan to the appellant). Therefore, the Commissioner, after issuing Show Cause Notice, disallowed the Modvat credit and also imposed penalty on the appellant. Against the order of the Commissioner, the appellant had filed an appeal before the CEGAT, who vide Final Order No. 962/1998, dated 19-5-1998 remanded the case to the original authority with the direction to consider the applicability of the decision of M/s. Hero Cycles as well as M/s. Prem Industries with regard to the facts of the present case. The Commissioner examined the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
