TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent. [Order]. In this appeal the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 30th April, 1997 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority, denying Modvat credit of Rs. 2,01,562/- to the respondents. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents took the Modvat credit on the strength of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufficient ground to adjourn the matter. If they had not received the notice of the appeal, how they come to know about today s date of hearing of the appeal. It rather shows that in fact they had received the notice for hearing of the appeal and in response to that they have sent the present letter with the view to seek the adjournment, without sufficient cause. Therefore I proceed to decide the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he could not. It was for the respondents to prove that the duplicate invoice was never issued to them by the SAIL or that the same was lost in transit or in their office. There is no material on record to suggest, if they ever sought the permission of the AC by satisfying him about loss of the duplicate copy of the invoice, before availing the credit of their own, on the original invoice. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
