2017 (1) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntendent (A.R.), for Respondent Per: Ramesh Nair: The issue involved in the present case is the dispute on availment of MODVAT credit of Rs. 7,46,962/- on invoices marked for carriers and not on duplicate invoices (invoices marked as duplicate for transporter). The adjudicating authority on the above discrepancy denied the MODVAT credit. In the appeal filed by the appellant, the Commissioner (Ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r. The Commissioner (Appeals) order cannot travel beyond the show-cause notice and the order passed by the original adjudicating authority. On this ground itself the impugned order is not sustainable. He further submits that the documents are valid documents as prescribed under the MODVAT credit Rules, the only discrepancy pointing out by the show-cause notice is the invoice were marked (for carri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that for denial of MODVAT credit allegation of the show-cause notice is that the invoices are bearing the mark (for carriers) whereas it should be "duplicate copy for transporter". As regard this discrepancy, we are of the view that the mere incorrect marking appearing on the invoices but .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X