9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 requirement of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely 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) E.L.T. 278 (Tri.) 4. Shri Atul Rastogi, learned Departmental Representative on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Co. Ltd. (supra) was over-ruled by the Hon ble High Court. 6. After considering the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 any point of time. Hence the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court is not applicable in the facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
