9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Ranchi, dated 25th August, 2003. Heard Shri P.K. Das, Advocate for appellant and Shri T.K. Kar, SDR for Respondent. Mr. Das submits that the Commissioner of Appeals rejected the appeal of the appellant on the grounds that there is no indication of availment of Rule 173H on the body of the invoice issued to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall not be taken by the manufacturer after 6 months of the date of issue of invoice evidencing payment of duty. Thus the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contradictory and inconsistance. He submits that the appellant on the face of invoice No. 12, dated 24th April, 1999 together with invoice No. 68, dt. 29th July, 1998 states that the input supplier delivered the appellant duty paid retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1999 which is not within 6 months from the date of issue of invoice. He relied on the decision rendered in Maharashtra Krishna Valley Devp. Corpn. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Pune-II reported in 2003 (159) E.L.T. 276. 2.In reply, learned SDR submits that in present case the appellant has availed Modvat credit on the basis of improper invoice No. 12, dated 24 Sept., 1999. As the covering invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by ld. SDR have merit. On the body of the Invoice No. 12, dated 24th April, 1999 date of debit entry of duty is 29th July, 1998 and it is written duty paid vide invoice No. 68, dated 29th July, 1998 which is contrary and in violation of the rules and procedures. Rule 57A(5) prescribes that credit shall not be taken by the manufacturer after 6 months of the date of issue of invoice evidencing pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
