2004 (1) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I proceed to decide the appeals after hearing the learned JDR. 2. Both these appeals have been directed against the common impugned order in appeal. The issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants for the disputed periods (May 1998 to December 1998) and April 1999 to July 1999, involving amount of Rs. 2,93,882/- and Rs. 2,45,828/-. 3. The Modvat credit has been sought to be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fide purchasers of the goods for a price, which included the duty element, could not be denied Modvat credit. 4. The second ground put forth by the department that the goods were not been purchased by the appellants directly from the manufacturer and as such in terms of Notification No. 58/97 the deemed Modvat credit could not be claimed by them, also cannot be accepted. The appellant is a Hary .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ground that name of The Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., was used by the appellants, for procuring the goods, the Modvat credit can not be disallowed to them, especially when there is no dispute regarding the receipt of the dutiable goods by them and utilization of the same, in the final products. 5. In view of discussions made above, the impugned order is set aside. Both the appeals of the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X