9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority reveals that he has co-related the invoices issued by Jamshedpur and Bombay and has found that all the requisite particulars establish that the same chassis were received by the Bombay office from the Jamshedpur office. We note that the provisions of Rule 57G were amended by way of introducing sub-rule (11) of the said Rule on 9-2-1999 which is to the effect that if there is no dispute about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate, for the Appellant. Shri Promod Kumar, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. ORDER After hearing both sides, we find that the appellant is engaged in the activity of building bodies on the duty paid chassis supplied to him by M/s. TELCO, Jamshedpur on job work basis. They were also availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on the said chassis. 2. Revenue s grievance is that TISCO, Jamshedp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged in the show cause notices that the invoices were issued in favour of TELCO, Bombay by TELCO, Jamshedpur and not in favour of the Noticee. On verification of the invoices, it has been found that Telco, Bombay has also issued invoices in favour of the noticee giving the reference of invoices, issued by TELCO, Jamshedpur and all the particulars as required under Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken as proper invoices for the purpose of Cenvat credit. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that dispute can be resolved without going into the amendments carried out in the provisions of Rule 57G or 57H. There is no dispute about the fact that chassis manufactured and cleared from Jamshedpur were actually received by the appellant for the purpose of fabrication of the body. The order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
