9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise; Division-II, Allahabad in which he had confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 64,020.00 under Rule 57-I on the respondents for availing ineligible Modvat credit. In one case the invoice for Rs. 45,320/- was endorsed in favour of the party. Another amount of Rs. 3,900/- of Modvat credit is taken wherein the invoice is in the name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the Assistant Commissioner had not taken into consideration the documentary evidence produced to prove that the inputs were in fact received and consumed in the appellant's unit at Banda. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the Board's clarification in M.F. (D.R.) Circular No. 211/45/96-CX, dated 14-5-1996 advising that credit should not be denied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and the Board instructions, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the party. 3. It is contended in the Revenue appeal that the impugned invoices were originally addressed to Kanpur and Rasra Units. The party has thus clearly contravened the provisions of Rule 57F(1) (ii) as the transfer of inputs could have been made under this Rule and not by endorsing the invoices as such. it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents. In my view the Modvat credit availed on the invoices totally amounting Rs. 49,220/- is broadly covered by the Board instructions, cited above. The appellants are a part of the multi-unit organisation of U.P. State. On verification of the documents it was learnt that their Head Office is at Kanpur, the invoices were addressed by mistake to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in RG-23C meant for capital goods or in RG-23A meant for inputs is available for utilisation towards payment of excise duty. The Ld. Advocate of the appellant has produced a copy of the declaration dated 9-10-1996 filed by his clients. It is observed that in this 'Paper Cone' is declared as one of the inputs under Rule 57A. Even otherwise also, if the credit is expunged from one account, it will h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
