9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Appellant. The Appellant are a manufacturer of footwear and in August 1997 they had purchased some chemicals from a first stage dealer M/s. Sarin Sales Corporation and had taken Modvat credit on the basis of the same. The Department issued a show cause notice to them seeking denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 43,020/- and also imposing penalty on them on the ground that the invoices of M/s. Sarin Sales Corporation, on the basis of which the Modvat credit had been taken, neither bear the words duplicate for transporter nor the mode of transport has been mentioned and beside this, debit of duty at the manufacturer end was also not mentioned. The Assistant Commissioner, however, vide order-in-original dated 29-12-97 dropped the proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Sarin Sales Corporation that Modvat credit has been taken on the basis of the two invoices issued by the first stage dealer, that there is no dispute about the receipt of the inputs by the Appellant, that the copies of the invoice on which the Modvat credit has been taken are duplicate invoices and that just because the mode of transport is not mentioned and the duty debit at the manufacturer s end is not mentioned and the invoices do not bear the words Duplicate for Transport , the Modvat credit cannot be denied. He emphasized that the Assistant Commissioner had given a clear finding that the invoices are duplicate invoices and mentioning the words - duplicate for transport the invoices, mentioning the mode of transport and duty de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the inputs have been received by the Appellant. I find that the Assistant Commissioner has given a clear finding that the invoices on the basis of which the basis Modvat credit has been taken, are duplicate invoices and just because the vehicle number and debit entry at the manufacturers end are not mentioned, the Modvat credit cannot be denied. I also find that subsequently M/s. Sarin Sales Corporation had given a certificate mentioning the vehicle number in which the goods had been transported and also the invoices issued by the manufacturers under which the duty had been paid on the goods. In view of these circumstances, mere absence of words duplicate for transport on the invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
