TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed on the ground that the invoices showed the appellants' factory address at Kim, whereas the goods were actually delivered to the appellants' other factory at Surat and were utilised therein. A portion of the credit availed by the appellants was proposed to be denied on the ground that the same has been availed on the basis of the certificates issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent in lieu of gate pass and the credit was taken after 1-4-1994, when the said certificates were not proper modvatable documents. 2. We have heard Shri K.I. Vyas, learned Advocate, for the appellants and Shri J.M. George, learned DR, for the Revenue. 3. The appellants' contention in respect of the first objection of the Revenue is that the 30 invoices w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom its factory or depot is a recognised document for the purposes of Modvat credit and inasmuch as the endorsement is only by the depot of the manufacturer, the same cannot be discarded as non-modvatable document. They have relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Arunoday Construction (P) Ltd. v. CC - 2001 (137) E.L.T. 426 laying down that the Larger Bench decision in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. [2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tri. - LB)] is not applicable inasmuch as the endorsement on the invoices was by the manufacturer's own depot and it was not a case of endorsement of invoices by in between receiver of the raw material. 4. As regards the other nine invoices, the appellants have contended that they have two factories - a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the endorsement is by the manufacturer's own depot, the ratio of the Larger Bench decision would not be applicable. As regards the other invoices, it is seen that though the address on the invoices is that of their Kim factory, the said invoices mentioned that the inputs are to be delivered at the Surat factory. In these circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. holding that when the invoices have been issued in the name of the office but the goods are received in the factory, the same would constitute proper modvatable documents, have to be applied. As regards the Modvat credit taken on the basis of certificates issued by the Superintendent prior to 31-3-1994, it is seen that the notification itself provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
