2006 (1) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 12-9-2003 wherein the Order-in-Original dated 15-5-2000 was upheld and Modvat credit was denied to the appellants on capital goods and inputs for various reasons. 2. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have documentary evidence to prove that the inputs were received an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arges i.e. declaration for capital goods and inputs were filed subsequently, duty paying documents were not in the name of the manufacturer, and the credit which was sought to be availed do not fall under the definition of capital goods and inputs. The documents produced by the learned Consultant in the form of declaration and the invoices and gate-passes show that these were addressed to the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the pending issues in respect of procedural infractions should be decided by following the circular. I find that in this case the Order-in-Original was issued on 17-5-2000 and the order-in-appeal was issued on 12-9-2003. The said amendment to Rule 57G and 57T was in existence during the adjudication as well as appellate proceedings. I also find that the order-in-original has not considered the sai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X