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>Appeal denied due to lack of evidence for Modvat credit transfer</h1> <h3>SHEFFIELD APPLIANCES LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NOIDA</h3> SHEFFIELD APPLIANCES LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NOIDA - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 917 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Denial of Modvat creditIn this case, the issue revolves around the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,00,413.20 to the appellants, which was the subject of an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal that affirmed the decision of the adjudicating authority.Analysis:The learned Consultant representing the appellants argued that since the goods were purchased from M/s. Raydack Projects Ltd., who acquired them based on a Bill of Entry through which M/s. Polar Industries Ltd. imported the goods, the appellants should be entitled to claim the Modvat credit for the amount in question.On the contrary, the learned JDR supporting the Respondent reiterated the correctness of the impugned order that denied the Modvat credit.After hearing both parties and examining the record, it was established that M/s. Polar Industries Ltd. imported the goods through a Bill of Entry dated 19-12-1995. The contention that M/s. Raydak Projects Ltd. purchased the goods on high sea sale basis from the importer and then sold them to the appellants was not substantiated. The authorities found no evidence in the Bill of Entry to support the claim that M/s. Raydak Projects Ltd. acquired the goods or transferred them to the appellants. The lack of documentation such as invoices or other records to prove the transfer of goods from M/s. Raydak Projects Ltd. to the appellants led to the rejection of their claim for Modvat credit. The oral statement provided by the appellants regarding the purchase of goods from M/s. Raydak Projects Ltd. was deemed insufficient to establish their entitlement to the credit. Consequently, the authorities upheld the denial of Modvat credit, finding no legal flaw in the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).Therefore, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision to deny the Modvat credit to the appellants based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting their claim.
TaxTMI 