9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants' argument is that when any excisable goods are purchased on payment of duty and are utilised in the manufacture of final products, the buyer has every right to take Modvat credit of the duty borne by him on such goods irrespective of whether supplier (manufacturer) of such goods passed the credit or otherwise. In this regard, it is to be held that when the supplier issued invoices and puts a remark 'non-modvatable' on these invoices, the onus to prove that credit was still available should rest on nobody else but the recipient, the buyer who had procured the inputs covered under such invoices. Instead of treating such documents as valid duty paying documents just like any other documents, and taking credit without seeking any clarifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for defacement before the Range Superintendent. The appellant on the other hand seek to argue that invoices were duly produced before the Superintendent. The appellant has also produced a copy of Invoice No. 3611, dated 3-6-1996 of M/s. Grasim Industries Limited involving credit amount of Rs. 2,896/- from which it can be seen that Range Superintendent has duly placed his signatures under a remark 'Modvat credit taken under Rule 57A'. It would therefore become clear that at the time when credit was taken, the appellant was in possession of prescribed duty paying document and that such a copy was also provided to Superintendent, as is evident from his remark. Therefore, denial of credit does not appear justifiable so far as Invoice No. 3611 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to appreciate that it was not for the Indian Oil Corporation to say whether the duty recovered by them from the appellants was non-modvatable or not. The question whether credit of duty paid is allowable as Modvat credit under the rules required determination from the Department only keeping in view the provisions of law. In terms of Rule 57A read with Rule 57B, a manufacturer was entitled to take credit of duty paid on the inputs used by him in or in relation the manufacture of final product. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was expected to make determination of this question alone. It is submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has singularly failed in determining the dispute in accordance with law and has rather tried to uphold t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced the invoices before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) himself at the time of hearing, as is evident from the written submissions. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the appellants have not produced any documentary evidence. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. (d) Lastly, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has denied credit in respect of CVD paid vide Bill of Entry No. 5355, dated 11-4-1996 on the ground that the appellants have stated duty was paid on 24-4-1996 in cash but no documentary evidence to support the said claim was produced before him. The appellants had produced the said Bill of Entry for perusal of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), and pointed out that in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
