TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Rules. During the month of April and May, 1994, the appellants availed Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 44,163/- on the strength of Invoice No. 036 dated 26-4-1994 issued in the name of M/s. Agarwal Steel Corporation, Kanpur and endorsed by them in favour of the appellants. The Superintendent issued a show cause notice dated 2-8-1994 calling upon them to explain as to why the credit wrongly utilised to the extent of the above amount should not be recovered in terms of the proviso to Rule 57-I as there was contravention of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and they were called upon to explain as to why penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of Central Excise Rules should not be imposed upon them. The assessee took the plea that both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94 for 12.50 MT involving duty of Rs. 19,792.00, totalling to Rs. 44,163.00. It is stated that the buyer copy of the said invoice was duly enclosed with RT 12 for the month of April, 1994 and May, 1994 at the time of filing the RT 12 for the relevant months. They had also submitted the photocopies of such invoices issued by both dealers in support of credit availed by them. They also relied on several other documents. The Assistant Collector did not agree with the said submissions and held that the endorsement of invoices issued on or after 1-4-1994 is not permissible in terms of the said Notification and Trade Notice and hence he held that Modvat credit on endorsed invoice is to be denied. Hence, he confirmed the demand and also imposed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing list of citations :- 1. 1993 (65) E.L.T. 460 (Tribunal) = 1993 (46) ECR 615 (Tribunal) 2. 1993 (67) E.L.T. 133 (Tribunal) = 1993 (46) ECR 466 (Tribunal) 3. 1995 (75) E.L.T. 377 (Tribunal) 4. 1994 (74) E.L.T. 593 (Tribunal) 5. 1995 (77) E.L.T. 785 (SC) 5. The learned DR reiterated the findings given by the lower authorities. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. It is noticed that both the authorities have not discussed the defence taken by the assessee and more particularly about substantial compliance of the Notification and the Trade Notice in this matter, although order-in-original records the submissions made by them. The original invoice issued by the dealer has been duly verified and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
