9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Madras Suspension Private Ltd. Madurai (MSPL). The appellant had placed the order for supply of these items to M/s. MSPL, Madurai, who in turn had placed the order for manufacture of these items to M/s. MSKPL, Hosakote. The inputs have been received in terms of the order placed by the appellant from M/s. MSKPL, Hosakote. The Commercial invoice was raised by M/s. MSPL, Madurai, which tallied with the goods supplied by M/s. MSKPL. Ld. Commissioner after due examination did not accept the documents although he admitted that the goods were received under cover of MSKPL invoices which shows the excise duty payment and relevant serial number in the RG 23A debit or PLA etc. e.g. Invoice No. 591 dated 18-12-94. However, he noticed that the credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and necessary duty particulars required under Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.). In view of this, the corresponding documents were verifiable. The Tribunal held that there is substantial compliance with the procedure and the appellant were eligible for Modvat credit. 3. In the case of BEEPEE Coatings Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara, reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 223 (Tri.) the Tribunal held that the appellant were entitled to the claim of Modvat credit, on the fact that the inputs were received by the job workers with invoice in the name of the customer. Such invoices were then endorsed by the customers in favour of the job worker. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Modvat credit was not deniable when correlation of inputs with duty paid docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Modvat credit. Further reliance was made to the case of Standard Surfactants Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 763 (Tri.) wherein it was held that Modvat taken on invoice issued by the dealers were not admissible for the grant of Modvat. 6. I carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. So far as the Larger Bench citations referred to by the ld. SDR, the issue therein pertained to the loss of duplicate copy of invoice which is not the issue in the present case. Likewise, in the case of Standard Surfactants Ltd. (supra), the invoices had been issued by the dealer who were not the manufacturers and also they were non-registered dealers. These citations are distinguishable. The citations relied by the ld. Counsel are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
