9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. M/s. Sharda Forging Stamping Pvt. Ltd., appellants, are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 claiming Modvat credit/CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. They claimed credit on certain inputs in respect of which they received a show cause notice proposing denial of credit on the basis that their invoices were n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of in pink colour - rightly denied by the lower authorities. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants have approached the Tribunal. The learned Advocate for the appellants produces a copy of the letter dated 27th August, 1999 addressed to the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-I, by RINL (their supplier) pointing out the reasons for error in printing of delivery challan-cum-invoice from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is triplicate or duplicate. This is mainly because the invoice bears over-writing by way of a rubber stamp which indicates that it is a duplicate invoice and the colour remains yellow i.e. the colour of the triplicate invoice. 5. Further the learned Advocate refers to the case of Indian Polytex Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, 2001 (43) RLT 452 (CEGAT - Del.), wherein the Tribunal has over looked the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 (T), which had accepted the supplier s letter confirming embossing of duplicate on invoices by them. Lastly, the learned Advocate refers to the case of Polyester Processors, 2003 (162) E.L.T. 230 (T) = 2003 (58) RLT 350 (CEGAT-Mum), in which it has been held that the matter be referred to the Larger Bench for consideration of the issue due to two directly contradictory orders noticed therein a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
