9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue that requirement of the provisions of Rules 52A and 57GG to avail Modvat credit was not fulfilled in some documents, which are enumerated in the order-in-original. We are concerned in this appeal only with one such document, which was invoice No. 1932 dated 21-9-1994 issued by Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (TTP) in the name of Kerala Industrial Products Trading Corporation Ltd. (KSIPTCL), because the learned counsel made it clear that the appeal was confined only to that item which was held against the appellant. 3. It was alleged in paragraph (viii) of the show cause notice dated 2-3-1995, that as per the RG.23A Part II entry at Sl. No. 594 dated 1-10-1994 an amount of Rs. 63,900/- was credited by the appellant on the basis of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion agent of TTP, the invoice in question did not qualify the conditions. The Modvat claim in respect thereof was, therefore, disallowed and this part of the order came to be confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by simply observing that KSIPTCL should have got itself registered. 6. Both the sides repeated the same contentions, which were raised before the authorities below. 7. It is evident from the record that the appellant specifically pleaded in the reply that it had claimed Modvat credit under the original invoice issued under Rule 52A by the manufacturer, i.e., TTP. On perusal of the invoice No. 1932, a copy of which is on record, it appears that it was issued under Rule 52A(i) as original (for buyer) . At the bottom it was cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he invoice No. 1932 dated 21-9-1994 of the manufacturer showed that it was original copy of the buyer and was issued under Rule 52A(1) of the said Rules. The particulars of this original invoice and the dispatch note issued by KSIPTCL showed that the same goods were directly dispatched from the factory of the manufacturer to the appellant in the same truck. Since the appellant had received the goods under the cover of invoice issued under Rule 52A, Modvat credit was admissible to the appellant. The impugned order denying Modvat credit of Rs. 63,900/- availed by the appellant on the strength of the said invoice No. 1932 dated 21-9-1994, cannot, therefore, be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. (Dictated and pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
