9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri A. Roy, Supdt. (A.R.), FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Per SHRI D.N. PANDA Ld. Counsel says that there are two demands involved in this appeal. Substantial demand of Rs. 10,60,556/- relates to the dispute on limitation in respect of return of goods on which Modvat credit was taken and reversed on return thereof for removal of defect and again such credit taken upon receipt of the goods on remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification of the goods that came back to the appellant from the suppliers. The Modvat credit taken thereon is as per ANNEXURE C above. Genuineness of the documents is not questioned by Revenue. Nor the claim of Modvat credit remained in dispute. But the only question raised by Revenue is that the limitation of 6 months period to take credit on subsequent invoice has to be reckoned from the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of demand, it is explained by the Revenue that the defects pointed out are genuine as is apparent from page 36 of the paper book. These are substantial in nature for which the appellant should not get any relief. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. So far as the first count of demand is concerned, it does not appeal to common sense how the genuine credit available should be denied wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998 when came alongwith subsequent supply of the goods upon rectification. On the basis of that document, the appellant claimed credit on 21.10.1998 which is within a period of 6 months of receipt of the goods subsequent to rectification. The credit so claimed remained undisputed when that was made on genuine transaction backed by genuine invoice. 8. In view of the above factual finding the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
