TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gujarat, against an Order-in-Appeal dated 21-8-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants had filed a refund claim of Rs. 2,15,951/- on the ground that they have received raw materials from M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ankleshwar, and M/s. Universal Capsules Ltd., Mumbai, under duty paying documents. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied upon a decision reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 405 (Tri.-Kolkata) in the case of M/s. Chrome Chemical Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-IV. It is observed that invoice issued in the name of the head office of the manufacturing unit and not the factory or its non-endorsement by the head office as stipulated in the C.B.E. C. Circular No. 211/45/96-CX, dated 14-5-96 are onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are at Dholka, credit at Kadi unit is not admissible as the same are invalid documents from them. In this regard, I find that the Hon'ble CEGAT, Mumbai, in the case of M/s. Goyal Electro Steel Castings reported at 2003 (57) RLT 468 held that, "Modvat Credit - Rule 57G of C. Ex. Rules, 1944 - Gate pass - not in the name of appellants and also not endorsed in their favour - credit not admissible t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
