9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. [Order]. Appellants are seeking stay of recovery of Rs. 5,32,623.20 and penalty of Rs. 51,000/-. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate states that the demand was raised against the appellants on the ground that they have taken Modvat credit on the basis of the invoices issued by the dealers who were not registered. The period of dispute is from July to December, 1994. He states that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is shown in the invoice. Therefore, these invoices are not valid documents. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. In July, 1994 when the notification was issued for registration of dealers, at that time the appellants were issuing invoices even without registration and only giving all the particulars of the duty paid on inputs. CBEC issued instructions clarifying that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals) however stated that registration is for specific premises and if the goods were not cleared from there then credit should not be allowed. Prima facie this cannot be a ground to deny the credit to the appellants. However, the matter requires detailed examination. Therefore, the appellants are directed; to pre-deposit Rs. 52,000/- as Rs. 48,000/- has already been recovered f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
