TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Satyen Dyes [2001 (11) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] when the sl. no. on the invoices have been stamped by the franking machine or typed by typewriter it is sufficient compliance of the statutory requirement of Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rule and such invoices are valid document for modvat credit. When invoices clearly mentioned appellant factory Bhopal as the consignee that there is no justification for denial of modvat credit in relation to those goods. As decided in Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajkot [2005 (6) TMI 177 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] that when bills of entry show the address of the head office while the goods sent to the factory of the assessee, cenvat credit would be admissible. Thus Cenvat cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate the ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that in respect of nine invoices on the basis of which the cenvat credit of Rs.12,75,621/- has been denied; the department s objection is that the invoices do not bear pre-printed sl. number as per requirement of Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rule and hence the same were not valid duty paying documents; that this objection of the department is not valid as the invoices nos. have been stamped by franking machine on the relevant invoices; that Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Satyen Dyes -2001 (134) ELT 655 (Tri. LB) has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bills of entry while the name of the assessee is EEI Industries, Ground Floor C-2, Commercial Centre, New Delhi whereas the cenvat credit has been availed by the manufacturing unit of the appellant at Bhopal, and that their objection of the department is not valid in view of the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Paharpur 3P vs. CCE, Meerut -2000 (116) ELT 107 (Tri.) wherein the Tribunal held that when the bill of entry was in the name of the Head office and the goods were received in the factory cenvat credit would still be admissible. He, therefore, urged us to set aside the cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty imposed upon the appellant. 4. Shri M.S. Negi, ld. AR for the department defended the impugned order and reiterat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t when the sl. no. on the invoices have been stamped by the franking machine or typed by typewriter it is sufficient compliance of the statutory requirement of Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rule and such invoices are valid document for modvat credit. In view of these judgement of the Tribunal and also in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the goods have been received in the factory, we are of the view that the impugned order denying the cenvat credit in respect of these invoices is not correct. 8. As regards the denial of cenvat credit in respect of three invoices where though the consignee is appellant factory at Bhopal but there is also a mention of the appellant s Head Office at Delhi as the 1st destination Head office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
