2000 (4) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Respondents. [Order]. -  This is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.20/98 (M-II) dated 24-2-1998. The only ground on which Revenue is aggrieved and is before us is that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should not have condoned procedural lapses and taken-up benelovent view to allow Modvat credit taken on defective goods returned by the customer on the basis of certificate under Rule ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... documents. Instead, on the request of TELCO, the Superintendent - II, Pune having jurisdiction on the factory of TELCO issued a certificate under Rule 57E regarding the amount of duty borne by the said castings. Ld. Asst. Commissioner in his order-in-original dated 26-2-1996 had disallowed the credit taken on this certificate on the ground that the said certificate did not constitute a valid duty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....their Range Superintendent, therefore this should not be held against the respondents as respondents had not committed any omission or commission during return journey of the duty paid castings from TELCO to respondents. He also submits that at best this is a procedural irregularity because Revenue has not challenged, disputed the fact that goods had some incidence of duty when they were cleared b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is not disputed to the extent that when goods were returned as rejects to the respondents, the duty burden already discharged on them had not been vacated and that returned goods were in fact duty paid goods, the credit of which had been certified by the Superintendent. 6. I find that though it is clear that TELCO had not followed the procedure of clearing the inputs received by them as s....