9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... totalling to Rs. 2,40,000/- on inputs to the appellants under Rule 57-I and sustaining penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on them by the original authority under Rule 173Q. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the common order-in-original passed by the original authority in adjudication of two show cause notices, one dated 22-5-95 and the other dated 26-5-95. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the adjudicating authority was upheld by the lower appellate authority. Hence this appeal of the assessee. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the assessee's submissions in relation to pre-authentication of invoice and pre-printing of serial number on the invoice. Even otherwise, ld. Counsel submits, Modvat cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit taken on the strength of the invoice. Referring to the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee had not applied for acceptance of the dealer's invoice in terms of Notification No. 64/94-C.E. (N.T.), ld. Counsel submits that the dealer who issued the invoice was a registered dealer as evidenced by the invoice itself. Notification No. 64/94-C.E. (N.T.) was applicable only to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit in question was not liable to be denied on the ground that the invoices did not bear pre-printed serial numbers. Such decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is well founded in the light of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Satyen Dyes (supra). The only ground on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority is that the assessee had not applied for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
