TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities below by disallowing the Modvat Credit to the appellants on the ground that the same has been availed on the basis of endorsed bills of entry. 2. Dr. Samir Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the appellants, fairly concedes that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. v. C.C.Ex., Kanpur reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (T-LB) = 2000 (36) RLT 666 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , thus, after considering the issue by the Board Circular on this aspect, has rejected the Revenue's appeal in that case. As such, he submits that an amount of Credit of Rs. 33,01,723.27 would be admissible to them, in view of the Tribunal's Order No. A-1127/CAL/2000 [2001 (137) E.L.T. 562 (Tribunal)]. 4. We have also heard Shri R.K. Roy, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue. While agreeing with Dr. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atio laid down by the Larger Bench. However, as regards the bill of entry dated 19-10-1993, since the same was endorsed by the appellants' own Head Office, by following the ratio of the earlier Tribunal's decision in the appellants' own case (as respondents) we hold that the appellants would be entitled to get the Modvat Credit in respect of the same. As regards the objection raised by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
