9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r]. - In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), denied the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of invoices issued by the dealers, who were not registered with the department before 31-12-94. 2. Shri Anil Singh Sisodia, learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that all the invoices were issued by the dealer, M/s. Cast Iron Syndicate on 18-7-94 and 19-7-94, whereas the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uirement being merely a procedural one. In this connection, he relied upon the following case laws. 1. Bengal Safety Industries v. CCE, Calcutta-I - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 81 (Tri.) 2. CCE, Coimbatore v. Sri Vinayaka Alloys (P) Ltd. - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 354 (Tri.) 3. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Patna - 1997 (93) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not registered even after 31-12-94 and therefore, the appeal is liable to be rejected. 5. The learned Advocate submits that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vimal Enterprises v. Union of India reported in 2006 (195) E.L.T. 267 (Guj.), held that Cenvat/Modvat credit cannot be denied on faults for which assessee is not responsible. He also submits that the case of Balmer Lawrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, namely when the Adjudicating Authority had discretion available to it; secondly, the supplier had applied for registration on 29-12-1994 and had been ' registered on 6-1-1995; and thirdly, the supplier had issued invoices which admittedly complied with the requirements prescribed by various Notifications." 7. In the present case, I find that the dealer had not applied for registration at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
