2000 (11) TMI 248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er, duty of Rs. 1,17,50,131.82 has been confirmed by the authorities below by disallowing the Modvat Credit to the appellants on the ground that the same has been availed on the basis of endorsed bills of entry. 2. Dr. Samir Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the appellants, fairly concedes that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. v. C.C.Ex., Kanpur report .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m Head Office to their own working place. The Tribunal, thus, after considering the issue by the Board Circular on this aspect, has rejected the Revenue's appeal in that case. As such, he submits that an amount of Credit of Rs. 33,01,723.27 would be admissible to them, in view of the Tribunal's Order No. A-1127/CAL/2000 [2001 (137) E.L.T. 562 (Tribunal)]. 4. We have also heard Shri R.K. Roy, lear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ect of the endorsed bills of entry in terms of the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench. However, as regards the bill of entry dated 19-10-1993, since the same was endorsed by the appellants' own Head Office, by following the ratio of the earlier Tribunal's decision in the appellants' own case (as respondents) we hold that the appellants would be entitled to get the Modvat Credit in respect of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X