9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies were fictitious - Gate passes were therefore also fictitious - No benefit of MODVAT on the basis of such fictitious entries could have been claimed by the petitioner - 5 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 24-9-2008 - Deepak Gupta and V.K. Ahuja, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: S/Shri M.M. Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Pushpa Attri, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Sandeep Sharma, ASGI, for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Enterprises consigned the goods in the name of M/s. Munish Steel Company and endorsed the gate passes in its name. Thereafter M/s. Munish Steel Company endorsed the gate passes in the name of appellant/company. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant/company for denial of benefit of the Modvat credit and imposition of the penalty on the ground that in fact the original consignors M/s. Gold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the petitioner contends that the Modvat credit can only be claimed and should not have been denied because as far as the petitioner is concerned, he had not connived with the original consignors i.e. the bogus and fictitious companies. 6. Even if we accept the contention of Shri M.M. Khanna, the petition is bound to be rejected. The Modvat credit can only be claimed in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
