9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellants reversed back the credit. However, subsequently, they could procure forty seven numbers of duplicate invoices and re-credited the amount of Rs. 5,93,776,75 (Rupees five lakhs ninety-three thousand seven hundred seventy-six and seventy-five paise). 2. The dispute in the present appeal is that above credit of Rs. 5,93,776.75 (Rupees five lakhs ninety-three thousand seven hundred and seventy-six and seventy-five paise) has been taken by the appellants after a period of six months in contravention of Rule 57G(2). Shri B.J. Mookherjee, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that initially, the credit was taken within a period of six months and as such, there is no contravention of the provisions of Modvat Rules. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices. They also produced affidavits of the transporters. In spite of that, the Asstt. Commissioner has not permitted them to take the credit on the basis of the original. Shri Mookherjee, ld. Advocate also relies upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. Standard Surfactants Ltd. - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 76 (T) = 2001 (45) RLT 42 (CEGAT - Del.), laying down that where the assessee approaches the Asstt. Commissioner for allowing the credit on the original Modvat credit invoice on the ground that the duplicate has been lost, prior permission of the Asstt. Commissioner is not necessary and its regularisation of the credit which has been allowed by the Asstt. Commissioner, and his satisfaction should come as a matter of course. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was produced after period of six months and as such credit cannot be allowed by the provisions of Rule 57G(2). However, taking into account the ratio of the decision referred to by the ld. Advocate, I am of the view that such denial is not justified inasmuch as there is no dispute that the inputs were received in the appellants factory within a period of six months from the date of issuance of invoice and the credit was also taken. As such I set aside the confirmation of demand of duty on this count. 6. As regards the balance demand of Rs. 2,87,949.55 (Rupees two lakh eighty seven thousand nine hundred forty nine and fifty five paise) the credit has been disallowed on the ground that the same was availed on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
