9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred this appeal against the order dated 8-2-2005 of the Commissioner Appeals), selling aside the Order-in-Original by which the adjudicating authority had disallowed Modvat/Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 5536.00 and directing recovery thereof, besides imposing penalty of the like amount and also ordering recovery of interest. 2. The Revenue had proceeded against the respondent on an allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The appellate Commissioner on scrutiny of the evidence on record came to a finding that the respondent had received the goods on invoices issued by M/s. HWP Ltd., and credit was correctly taken. It was also observed that no irregularity was committed by the present respondent-assessee and all the records were duly maintained. The appeal was, therefore, allowed in favour of the assessee. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party s letter dated 6-11-01 showing the statement of account in which both these bills were shown as supplied to the appellant. It was also pointed out from documents that Court cases were filed by the said party to claim the amount of these bills from the assessee in view of the delay in their payment. Copies of the relevant Court papers were forwarded in support of this contention. Moreover, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority has misconstrued the correction in the context of invoices No. 62 and 80 in the amounts of Modvat credit pointed out by the assessee as an admission that the goods were not received under the invoices for which the wrong amounts were mentioned in the show cause notice. It was pointed out that due to paucity of funds payments of these bills were delayed and the party had ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
