TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garding the receipt of the goods in their factory in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 57T of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is also alleged that the Bill of entry dated 15-10-1993 on which modvat credit of Rs. 1,50,257.70/- had been taken, was not in favour of the party as it was in favour of M/s Jamuna Auto Ind. Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi whereas the credit has been availed by M/s Jamuna Auto Ind. Ltd., Malanpur and no declaration/certificate was given on Bill of entry that the goods will be used for the manufacture of excisable goods at the latter's premises. Another amount of Rs. 1125 has been dis-allowed on the grounds that the modvat credit on the inputs is taken under the invoice which is not duplicate for transporter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r may require, on receipt of such capital goods. It is stated that the Collector, Central Excise had issued Trade Notice No. 63/94-CE, dated 2-8-1994 prescribing the format of intimation. The Original Authority has observed that the intimation dated 19-11-1994 does not show the date of receipt of the capital goods in the factory which is the most important information in case of such goods. The ld. DR has drawn my attention to Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice dated 14/15-12-1994 wherein it is stated that the modvat credit of Rs. 1,50,257.70 taken on 11-7-1994 relates to the bill of entry dated 15-10-1993. Similarly the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,54,079.90 is taken on 18-6-1994 and it relates to the bill of entry No. 79 dated 15-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 125/- is denied on the grounds that the invoices were not "duplicate from transport". It is stated that the credit has been taken on the strength of the original copies of invoices. This inference is arrived at only the ground that both the original and duplicate copies are written in ink whereas a duplicate copy or invoice is always a carbon copy. I think this finding is only a conjecture on the part of the adjudicating authority. I find no reason to deny the Modvat credit to the appellants on this ground. 6. The appellants are also subject to a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q. The penalty is imposed on them for having knowingly deprived the Govt. of its due exchequer for a considerable time by contravening the rule 57G . This do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
