9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals with two Show Cause Notices which are separately dealt below:- 3. In the first case, Modv credit of Rs. 2,55,783/- has been disallowed on oil and grease on the ground that the duplicate copy of the invoice has not been produced 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 contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... public sector undertaking viz. M/s. Indian Oil directly under several invoices during April, 1995. He states that initially the credit was denied on the ground that furnace oil was not an eligible input used for generation of electricity some 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 persona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the supplier public sector unit M/s. Indian Oil issued the impugned invoices directly to the appellants and such invoices were not pre authenticated at that time as a general practice. He further states that in the following cases, the Tribunal has allowed 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) Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
