TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The original authority had allowed Modvat credit of Rs. 19,675/- to the appellants, but imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on them. The first appellate authority disallowed the credit and sustained the penalty. It appears from the records that the credit in question was taken on the strength of original invoice which was not normally permissible at the relevant time (March-April, 1996). When ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of dispute (March-April, 1996) in this case. Hence the present appeal. 2.I have heard both sides and considered their submissions. The capital goods credit in question was taken in March-April, 1996 on the basis of original copy of invoice. During the period, the proper duty-paying document for the purpose of availment of capital goods credit was DUPLICATE FOR TRANSPORTER copy of invoice vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 240 (T), wherein capital goods credit taken by the assessee in April, 1995 on the basis of original copy of invoice was allowed to them. The relevant part of the cited decision is extracted below :- The second ground for denial of credit is that it was taken on original invoice in April 95. In the case of Ganeshwar Sugar Mills Ltd., as reported in 1997 (92) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a duplicate invoice. I find that the said Rule was amended only w.e.f. 23-7-1996 when the duplicate copy was specifically introduced in Rule 57T. Therefore in April, 85 when credit was taken on original invoice, the ratio of aforesaid case law applies, and credit taken is lawful. 3.Noticeably, in the above order, it was noted that Rule 57T was amended w.e.f. 23-7-96, which meant that the ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
