TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants also claimed before the lower authorities that, besides the manufacturer's invoices, they also had produced the dealer's invoice corresponding to the manufacturer's invoice. The lower authorities did not accept the said documents either, stating that the said document (dealer's invoice) does not contain critical details such as rate, amount of duty as well as payment of particulars. The grounds pleaded before the lower authorities are more or less reiterated in the instant appeal. 2. Heard both sides. The appellants placed reliance on certain judgments, which the learned DR in his respectful submission pleads that, these are for the earlier period. 3. Without going into the controversy of applicability or otherwise of the cited j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s/subsidiary gate passes, was full of confusion. The credit pertains to the period from 1-4-1994 to 14-4-1994. In any case the eligibility of credit has to be examined in terms of the provisions of notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994. The said notification is extracted below :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby prescribes the invoice issued by - (i) a manufacturer from his factory or depot; or (ii) wholesale distributor/dealer of a manufacturer who has bought the excisable goods either from the manufacturer at the factory or from the manufacturer's depot; or (iii) an importer from his godown, containing - (a) the rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has to be treated as a document issued by the dealer and its eligibility has to be determined in terms of the provisions contained in Notification 15/94 C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994. 7. On comparing the contents of the composite document, it is obvious that all the particulars required under the Notification 15/94-C.E. (N.T.) are present therein and therefore, the credit was correctly taken by the appellants on the basis of the said document. In fact, the departmental authorities had accepted this position inasmuch as, both the documents were defaced together. In case one of the documents was not valid for taking credit the same need not have been considered as a duty paying document and subjected to defacement. Accordingly I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
