9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the fact that the above items were accessories to the continuous span which is a major machinery in the manufacture of sugar and hence credit of duty is admissible on the same. The another ground on which the lower authority disallowed the credit was that the invoices showed the names of consginee as M/s. R.S. Sounderarajan, Thanjavur and M/s. Process Engineering Equipments Ltd. Madras whereas the goods were received by M/s. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. as on account of. The denial of Modvat credit on the above ground was also not in order as the invoices were on account of M/s. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Lld. and such invoices are admissible documents for the purpose of claiming the credit of duty. Not filing of the declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal lapse since the Rule's foremost requirement for availing Modvat credit, is filing of relevant declaration, which is not done so in the instant case. Therefore, the credit allowed is not correct and hence not applicable. 2.We have heard Shri M. Murugan, learned DR for the Department and Shri Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Counsel for the respondents. The learned DR relied upon the grounds taken in the present appeal and the Larger Bench decision in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur as reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (LB-Tribunal). 3(a)The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a very elaborate and lucid findings in respect of each of the aspect taken by the Revenue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same is likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconvenience and misuse of the Modvat Credit. We have examined the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and find that he has come to the conclusion that the view taken by the lower authority in denying the Modvat credit on the ground that they did not play any role in the manufacturing process of the final product, was not correct since the item in question were accessories of 'Continuous span' which was major machinery in the manufacture of sugar. Commissioner (Appeals)'s in the grounds of appeal also mentioned that this view of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the findings that they were accessories of 'Continuous Span' which is major machinery in sugar plant, is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
