9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough Cheques/ Demand Drafts against the inputs received from said suppliers. Revenue in their memo of appeal have not been able to effectively rebut the above finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) except to show the invoices were made at a time gap of 5 to 15 minutes. As rightly held by Commissioner (Appeals), the goods involved in all these invoices can be transported in one truck load and there being no other evidence on record, the said fact cannot be adopted in prejudice to the assessee's case - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. 3787 of 2006-SM - ORDER NO . FO/58450 /2013-SM(Br) - Dated:- 26-11-2013 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. For the Appellant : Shri V.P. Batra, DR JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: Being aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records including the Appellants submissions made in writing and at the time of personal hearing and observe that the Adjudicating Authority has disallowed the modvat credit and impose penalty on the Appellant on the grounds that inputs had been cleared twice in the same truck under two different invoices and the time of preparation/removal varied from 5 to 10 minutes during which period it was physically impossible to make two visits from Chandigarh to Derabassi a distance of about 25-30 Kms. The contention of the Appellants is that the invoices which were prepared within a time gap of 5 to 15 minutes were for smaller quantities of the inputs i.e. ranging from 3 Mts. to 5 Mts. and it is always possible to load the quantity mentioned in 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eques/ Demand Drafts against the inputs received from said suppliers. Moreover, it is squarely covered in the case of Neera Enterprises vs. CCE [1998 (104) ELT 382 (Tri) and held that credit cannot be denied merely because time of removal of goods was omitted to be mentioned on the invoices. In the case of Gomti Engineering Works vs. CCE 1998 (103) ELT 156 (Tri). It was held that mode of transport and vehicle number need not be indicated in Rule 57GG invoices. Similarly in the case of M/s. Smruti Organics Ltd vs. CCE 1998 (101) ELT 74 (Tri). It was held that credit cannot be denied on the grounds that the invoices did not contain the details of the mode of transport so long as there was no dispute that duty had been paid. 4. The Revenue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
