9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal is about certain Modvat credits taken by the appellants. The appellant is not disputing the interest on duty demand of Rs. 3,71,610/- made at (c) page 21 of the order. Also, penalty of Rs. 37,161/- imposed under (d)(iii) at page 22 of the order. Therefore, these are required to be confirmed. 2. At (a)(i) on page 21 of the order, credit of Rs. 23,21,193/- has been denied on capital goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Clause 3(ii)(b) cannot be attracted to the transaction at all. In respect of the credit (Rs. 14,90,678/-) taken on other goods, the appellant's contention is that, while the equipment was financed by ICICI, the agreement that specified duty was not under finance. The appellant's Counsel has taken us through the agreement with ICICI to show that agreement clearly stated that the financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mputer entries in the appellant's books of accounts. The learned Counsel has pointed out that, in such a situation, where the receipt of the goods was not in dispute, there is no occasion for denial of credit. He has taken us through invoices to show that the receipt of the goods remained noted on them. The invoices also show that credit had been taken in RG 23-Part II. 5. We have perused the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
