TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued by Shri T.A. Arunachalam, JDR. The respondents vide their letter, dated 27-6-98 desired the disposal on merits. 2. The single issue involved is whether an invoice issued in March, 94 by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mathura, was the document enabling Modvat credit to be taken or not. In his order, the Assistant Commissioner held that such documents were not prescribed either under no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, any invoice issued before that date could not called valid document for claiming Modvat. It was claimed that this invoice was not listed under the various documents prescribed under Notification 16/94 also. It was claimed that the Commissioner was wrong in going into the equity when the rules were specific as to the identity of the duty paying documents. 3. I find that the appeal papers co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it certifies the payment of duty. The Vice-President sitting singly, in his judgment in the case of Shri Ram Steels v. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 71 (Tribunal) had accepted the delivery orders/challan issued by the Bhilai Steel Plant, another PSU as eligible documents. In holding so, he had relied upon an earlier order of the Tribunal. In my opinion in spite of nomenclature such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
