TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of appellants in Modvat credit denial case</h1> <h3>DHILLON KOOL DRINKS & BEVERAGES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., ROHTAK</h3> DHILLON KOOL DRINKS & BEVERAGES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., ROHTAK - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 921 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Denial of Modvat credit on the ground of missing triplicate copy of Bill of Entry.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi pertains to the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,38,505/- to the appellants due to the absence of the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry. The appellants claimed the loss or misplacement of the triplicate copy in their office and submitted a certified copy of the Bill of Entry along with the appeal, although they initially took credit based on a photocopy. Notably, the department did not contest the receipt and utilization of the capital goods by the appellants for manufacturing final products. Reference was made to a previous case, M/s. Glaxo India Ltd., where the Tribunal allowed credit based on a Xerox copy of the Bill of Entry in a similar situation, supporting the appellants' claim.The judgment distinguishes the present case from precedents cited by the Respondent's representative. In the case of Raj Cement v. CCE, Jaipur, the credit was disallowed due to discrepancies in the photocopy of the invoice, such as a different consignee name and lack of proper authentication, which is not applicable in the current scenario. Similarly, the decision in CCE, Madurai v. TVS Srichakra Ltd. is deemed irrelevant as it involved credit taken on an extra copy of the invoice, unlike the circumstances of this case. Consequently, based on the discussion and legal precedents cited, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants are indeed entitled to the Modvat credit in question. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellants was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law.
TaxTMI 