9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal itself with the consent of both sides. 2. It is seen that the appellant company took the Modvat credit in respect of two invoices, which have been denied by the authorities below, on the ground that the same has not been taken on the basis of the duplicate copy of the invoice meant for transporter. In respect of the first invoice, it is the contention of the applicant/appellant company t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Office for the defacement. As such, he submits that loss of invoice during the journey from their factory to the Central Excise Office would also be considered as loss in transit. Inasmuch as there is no dispute about the loss of the invoice, the Modvat credit should be allowed to them. 3. In respect of the second invoice, Shri Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant submits that the original as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L on the photocopy of the invoice and there being no dispute about the receipt of the inputs in their factory and their duty-paid character, the appellants should be allowed the Modvat credit. 4. Shri T.K. Kar, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue opposes the prayer and while conceding for the case of the first invoice that the same is covered by the Larger Bench decision, submits that in the second ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ratio of the Larger Bench, I hold that the Modvat credit is admissible in respect of the first invoice. As regards the second invoice, the appellants' contention is that the original as well as the duplicate were lost by the driver while transporting the goods from the input-supplier to the appellants' factory. As rightly argued by the learned Consultant, if the driver could lose the duplicate c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
