TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al whereby the benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel tubes. Prior to 1-3-94 the steel tubes were exempted from payment of duty, therefore, the appellants were paying duty on the intermediate product i.e. C.R. Strip. On 1-3-94 the exemption granted to the steel tubes was withdrawn and the ste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules. 3. In pursuance to the remand order, the adjudicating authority again confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellant had not produced the original duty paying documents i.e. GP-1s. The Commissioner (Appeals) also dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the same ground. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant vide letter dated 15-7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, the credit cannot be denied on the ground the appellant failed to substantiate their claim. 5. The contention of the Revenue in the remand order is that the Tribunal gave a specific direction to the appellant that they will produce the documents in support of their claim and as the appellant failed to produce the original duty paying documents they are not entitled for the benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Rules. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the Revenue, being a coordinate bench, we are bound by the direction contained in the remand proceedings. Now the issue before us is whether the appellant has substantiated their claim for taking Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the final product which was lying in stock when the final product becomes dutiabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this covering letter without supplying the duty-paying documents. As the appellants were paying duty in respect of intermediate products, as final product was exempted from payment of duty and this fact is not denied by the Revenue and Revenue is not seriously contesting the receipt of the original GP-1s, therefore, now Revenue cannot say that appellant failed to prove their claim hence the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
