9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeking stay of operation of the impugned order. The findings recorded by the Commissioner in paras 5 6 is reproduced wherein below- There are three invoices involved in the instant appeal. As regards invoice No. 13324 dated 9.2.1996, the modvat credit of ₹ 43,284/- has been disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the same was taken by the appellants on 15.9.1996 i.e., after a period of more than six months and hence, as per proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the appellants are not eligible to take credit after six months from the date of issue of the invoice. The appellants contended that the supplier by oversight mentioned in the invoice their Registered Office address instead of fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub heading No. 2903.90 in the said invoice whereas under Rule 57G declaration, the input declared was Chlorinated Paraffin Wax falling under Chapter sub heading 3812.00. I find there is slight variation in the description of the goods as shown in the invoice and the modvat declaration although the classification has been differently shown i.e., 2903.90 in the invoice and 3812.00 in the modvat declaration. This is a minor technical mistake on the basis of which the substantive benefit of modvat credit cannot be denied to the appellants particularly when the receipt of the inputs, its duty paid nature, its eligibility to the modvat credit and its use in the manufacture of the finished product etc., have not been questioned by the lower auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this bench in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. [2001 (127) ELT 786 (T)] has upheld the assessee's contention and submits that the judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. 4. As the matter lies in a short compass, I take up both the stay and appeal together for disposal as per law. 5. On a careful consideration of the submission, I notice that there is no infirmity in the order as the order is in keeping with the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paras 2 to 4 is reproduced below:- 2. We have heard Sri. S. Kannan, learned DR for the Revenue, who reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in this case. The credit was taken in R.G. 23A. Part I and also Part II and was reversed on the instructions of the Audit team of the Revenue Department. As regards the credit of quantity, however, the goods were utilised for the manufacture of the declared final product; He therefore, submits that the Revenue appeal has no merit and should be dismissed. 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions and material on record, we find that- (a) The credit has been taken initially on 23.6.1996 and 14.12.1996 and thereafter it was reversed on 31.12.1996 and 18.2.1997 in the other case. Thereafter, they took up the matter with the concerned Custom House and obtained the relevant documents i.e. Bill of Entry to take the credit which c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
