TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al against denial of Modvat credit on the strength of invoices in which allegedly certain particulars like manufacturer invoice number, date, rate of duty and amount of duty were not indicated. The other allegation was that the invoices were not issued by the registered dealer. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of electrical goods. They were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars were contained in the invoice but a copy of the invoice on the basis of which the goods were received by the supplier of invoice was also furnished. However after considering all the facts the Deputy Commissioner held, In view of the above discussion finding, I confirm the demand of Rs. 87,179.16 (Rupees eighty seven thousand one hundred seventy-nine and paise sixteen) under Rule 57-I of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submits that description of the goods, the value of the goods, duty payable on the goods and the amount of duty paid was indicated in the invoice. He submits that since these particulars were material particulars and were furnished the Department should not have taken any exception to this and should have allowed the Modvat credit. 4. In regard to the registration of the dealers the learned Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect I hold that Modvat credit will be admissible to the appellant. 7. In regard to registration of the dealer I note that invoices pertained to the period prior to 4th July, 1994. Since the registration of dealer became necessary w.e.f. 4-7-1994, therefore, this requirement is not applicable in the instant case. 8. Having regard to the above findings I set aside the impugned order and allow t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
