2002 (9) TMI 735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture iron and steel bars, angles, etc.; that the Assistant Commissioner under the Adjudicating Order No. 78/96, dated 31-1-96 disallowed the Modvat credit, on the ground that M/s. TISCO, Jaipur which had issued the dealers' invoices to the Appellants, did not submit the duplicate copy of invoice to the proper officer; that on Appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) had also rejected their Appeal as the duty paid nature of the goods could not be verified. 3. Learned Advocate further, submitted that in their own case, the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. A/263-267/2001-NB (SM), dated 14-2-2001 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 722 (Tribunal)] has allowed the appeal holding that if some irregularity....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., authorised signatory of M/s. TISCO, Jaipur in his statement dated 3-4-95 had deposed that the duplicate copy of the manufacturer's invoice had been mis-placed/destroyed/lost by the transporter; that Mr. Bhattacharya also agreed that the modvatable invoice issued by them, were not valid document for taking Modvat credit. He also mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) has distinguished the decision in the case of Tiruhari India Pvt. Ltd. by observing that in the said case the registered dealer had at least produced the original copy of the invoice and there was no dispute regarding the fact that inputs were duty paid; that in the present matter registered dealer had not produced any duty paying documents forming the basis on the basis of....