9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal arises from order in appeal dated 7-8-1996 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad. The issue in this appeal lies in a short compass. The lower authorities proceeded against the appellant on the ground that they were not entitled to utilise Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of capital goods as stated in the impugned order. The second ground on which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit were available at the relevant time in respect of Modvat credit on capital goods. He held that Modvat credit on original copy of invoices would not be available to the appellant and on this short ground he dismissed the appeal. 2. We have heard both sides in this appeal. Ld. Advocate pointed out that the ld. Commissioner has not examined the provisions specially Rule 57G(2A) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake credit of the specified duty on capital goods, paid by a contractor or job worker who undertakes the job of initial setting up, renovation, modernisation or expansion of the plant on behalf of the manufacturer of final products, subject to such procedure and conditions as the Commissioner of Central Excise or Central Board of Excise and Customs may prescribe.'' 3. Ld. DR accepts the lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he utilising Modvat credit under the cover of invoice or a Bill of Entry or any other document; as may be specified under Rule 57G evidencing the payment of duty on such capital goods. It follows from the reading of sub-rule (3) of 57T that there is no emphasis on duplicate copy of invoice but merely states that no credit of specified duty shall be taken unless such capital goods are received in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , any assessee can produce any other document as may be specified under Rule 57G. In the present case, original invoice itself has been produced as a supporting evidence for loss of duplicate invoice. Therefore, there is no cause to hold that there is no provision in the Rules or about the non-satisfaction of the documents produced. The impugned orders suffer for an infirmity and is required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
