2014 (4) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by the appellant seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of CENVAT credit of Rs. 67,589/- denied to them for the period from October to December 2006. The denial of the credit is on the ground that the relevant invoices were not issued to the appellant by the manufacturer of inputs. The invoices were issued to the appellant's job worker and the latter made endorsements thereo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d this provision and have found no mention of endorsed invoice in the list of documents prescribed under the Rule. I am not oblivious of the need to interpret the provisions harmoniously. But any provision so interpreted should be squarely applicable to the given factual situation so as to enable the appellant to claim CENVAT credit. If the manufacturer of inputs had issued the invoices to the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uch as, as early as in October 2006, they had written to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise that they proposed to get their final products manufactured by job-workers and that the procedure laid down for job work under Notification No. 214/86 was proposed to be followed. This letter (copy available on record) did not propose that the appellant would take CENVAT credit on invoices endorse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X