9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e invoice was dated 31-7-1996. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants as to why the credit should not be denied to them. On Adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed a penalty on an appeal from the order-in-original. The appellate authority in its Order-in-appeal No. 19-CE/KNP/2000, remanded the matter, back to the adjudicating authority for verifying the duty paying nature from the originating range. The adjudicating authority in the second round of Adjudication has again confirmed the demand and appellate authority on an appeal upheld the order on the ground that the appellant was not able to satisfy the adjudicating authority. Hence this appeal. 2. The learned advocate for the appellants s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question is lost in transit by the driver and sought permission to avail credit on the basis of original invoice. The Revenue authorities instead of directing the appellant on the issue sought to keep quiet. On appellants taking credit in November, 1996, the Revenue swings into action and seeks to deny the credit, on the original invoice. This action of the Revenue is highly objectionable. The revenue instead of guiding the assessee to file FIR, affidavit etc. chooses to keep quiet on the letter dated 10-10-96 and seeks to deny the credit on the basis of non-filing of FIR, affidavit of the driver. If the revenue would have responded to the letter dated 10-10-96, the assessee would have tried to get the FIR lodged etc. Having not guided the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itimate credit of duty. 7. In the case of Trishul Alloys Pvt Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-I, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 249 (Tribunal), it was held that :- Duplicate copy of invoice of appellant having been lost, Modvat credit taken on original invoice - Assistant Collector to make enquiry from Range Superintendent about duty paying character of the consignment, and then allow or disallow Modvat credit. 8. I find that the above decision squarely covers the issue in this case. Since the matter was remanded once to the adjudicating authority to do the verification has failed to elicit any information, it would serve no purpose to remand the matter again for the same reason. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the order in appeal deserv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
