9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced by the appellants for taking such credit. Shri S.P. Mazumder, Ld. advocate appearing for appellants states that the appellants are a public sector unit and they have received the impugned goods from another public sector unit directly. The goods were received under nine invoices on which it was printed "Quadruplicate for Assessee" but the same was prominently scored out and the invoices were stamped as "DUPLICATE FOR TRANSPORTER" by rubber stamp in big size letters. He states that the appellants had no control over the fact that the impugned goods were sent under rubber stamped invoices. He states that in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Collector of C. Excise, Bhubaneswar- 1994 (72) E.L.T. 948 (Tribunal) it was held that rubber sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of which was supplied to township. The second ground taken was that the invoices were not proper as they were not pre authenticated and 'duplicate copy for transporter' was not mentioned on such invoices. The matter had earlier reached the Tribunal in the first round when the case was remanded. 6. We find that in the final order dated 27-11-2000, the Tribunal had remanded the matter for de novo decision mainly on the ground that the submissions by the appellants were not considered and the personal hearings were not attended. 7. In the de novo order the credit has been denied on three grounds:- (i) The furnace oil in question has been partly used for generation and supply of electricity to the township. (ii) The relevant invoices were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed credit holding that non pre authentication was only a procedural lapse:- (i) Banswara Fabrics Ltd. v. Commr. of C.E., Jaipur - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 921 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) Ramgarh Chini Mills v. Commr. of C.E., Kanpur - 1998 (103) E.LT. 65 (Tribunal) (iii) Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Excise, Bangalore - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 185 (Tribunal) (iv) Rahul Steel Forging Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C.Ex., Bhopal - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 163 (Tri.-Del.) (v) Commr. of Customs, Meerut v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 211 (Tri.-Del.) 11. As regards non mention of the "duplicate for transporter" on the invoices, Shri Mazumder states that such a requirement was stipulated through amending Notification No. 2/95-CE (NT) dt. 19-1-95 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
