9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants availed of Modvat credit on sugar purchased from the first stage dealer, who was registered under Rule 57GG for the manufacture of biscuits. While the Revenue contends that since the said Registered dealer M/s. Rameshlal . Brothers, Hubli, had taken Modvat credit in their R.G. 23D wrongly on the basis of original invoices issued by the manufacturer of sugar [whereas the credit should have been taken only on duplicate invoices|, therefore, the invoice issued by the Registered dealer in favour of the present appellants was not a valid document, hence the appellants have been asked to reverse the same. 4. Learned advocate takes me through the facts of the case and submits that the sugar manufacturer did infact, issue both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he strength of an original invoice without having the duplicate copy of the said invoice. The Revenue has not made any investigation as to what happened to the duplicate copy of the invoice. No statement has been recorded from representative of HPCL whether the duplicate copy was received by them or it was lost in transit or whether it has been misused. In the absence of any further investigation on the part of the Revenue and on the allegation made in the case, settled proposition of law that a procedural deviation should not result in denial of benefit of substantive character which is the Modvat credit in this case. Therefore to urge that M/s. HPCL has not taken the credit correctly because of absence of duplicate copy of the invoice wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this dispute in great detail and has found that since the registered dealer had not obtained a permission from his jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for taking credit on original copy of the invoices, as is provided in the Rules, therefore, subsequent credit taken by the present appellant on the invoices issued by the said dealer is legally incorrect. He therefore, submits that there is nothing illegal in the order impugned. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and records of the case. 1 find that significantly the Revenue had also issued a show-cause notice to the registered dealer M/s. Rameshlal Brothers, Hubli, for not following the proper procedure under Rule 57GG etc. and on adjudication, he has been penalised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied to the appellant. The Tribunal had also held that the theory of better title would not come to the aid of Revenue in the case where it has not been established that goods are non-duty paid. In this case, already as analysed above, the goods were duty paid and the incidence of duty has passed on till the appellant's stage, in view of the credit in R.G. 23D not having been denied to the registered dealer by the department. A similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. (supra). 8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid analysis and following the ratio of these decisions, the Order-in-Appeal impugned is set aside along with the attendant Order-in-Original and the appeal is allowed, with consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
