TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pre-stressed Concrete Sleepers under a contract with the Railways and supplying the same to the Railways. They have been granted a licence for temporary occupation of land at Jagiroad belonging to the Government for the purpose of setting up of its Concrete Sleeper Factory. At the said factory, the Inspector of Wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sam. As per the appellants, the address given in the said invoice is theirs, though the name of the Inspector of Works, Northern Frontier Railways, whose office was also situated in their factory, was shown. The appellants availed the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the said Inserts on the basis of the invoices issued by M/s. Star Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. The total credit availed by them on this acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of the endorsed invoices. The said show cause notice proposing to confirm a demand of duty of Rs. 10,42,720.00 was confirmed by the Commissioner and a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakh was also imposed under Rule 173Q of the said Rules, vide the impugned Order. Hence the present appeal. 5. We have heard Shri Partha Banerjee, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri R.K. Roy, Learned JDR for the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute about the fact that such duty-paid Inserts have been used by the appellants in the manufacture of their final product. As such, we agree with the contentions of the learned Advocate for the appellants that it is not a case of endorsement of invoices. It is understandable that when the appellants were manufacturing the goods under a contract with the Railways and the Railways were to provide f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LT 666, would not be applicable. 8. As regards the denial of credit of Rs. 37,720.00 availed by the appellants in respect of the cement, it is seen that invoices issued under Rule 52A by M/s. L. T., were endorsed by M/s. L. T. s own office at Calcutta in favour of the appellants along with their own invoices. As such, it is not a case of endorsement of invoices by the in-between receiver of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|