9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant's appeal is directed against the confirmation of duty of Rs. 63,327/- being the irregular Modvat credit allegedly taken by them. The order of the adjudicating authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the appeal to the Tribunal. 2. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing denial of Modvat credit of the respective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roda/Bharuch, I find that as per Rule 57T (7), the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to permit a manufacturer to take credit of specified duty on capital goods paid by a contractor or job worker who undertakes the job of initial setting up, renovation, modernisation or expansion of the plant on behalf of the manufacturer of final product. The important criteria to be observed by manufacturer is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requisite permission to take credit of duty paid by M/s. Blue Star Ltd., was not obtained, the credit was disallowed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. It is noticed that, the show cause notice does not indicate any grounds of ineligibility except making an allegation to the effect that, there was a failure to obtain necessary permission from the Assistant Commissioner in terms of proviso to Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. The only objection for denial of credit is the fact that these documents are in the name of Blue Star Ltd. It is obvious that since Blue Star Ltd., were the executors of the project in the appellant's factory, the capital goods in question were received by Blue Star Ltd., and the same were installed in the appellant's factory in terms of job contract in question. 7. On going thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orded. The Assistant Commissioner cannot say that just because the manufacturer had failed to obtain prior permission, the credit is required to be disallowed. 9. In the instant case, I note that the capital goods were installed in the appellant's factory by M/s. Blue Star Ltd., and the payment of duty thereon is not in dispute as also the fact of their installation. Therefore, I hold that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
