TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (2) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disallowed them Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs as they had received the inputs during the month of August and September, 1995 under the invoices which were not having prescribed colour i.e. pink as required under Notification No. 23/95 dated 3-5-1995; that the Commissioner (Appeal) also rejected their appeal by relying on the decision in the case of Suraj Foundary v. CCE, Allahabad - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 559. The ld. Advocate, further, submitted that there are catena of judgments on the issue of procedural/technical lapses in which it has been held that when inputs had been received which have suffered duty and were used in the manufacture of final products and no fraud is suspected Modvat credit cannot be denied; that the requireme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be termed as pink as well. He finally, mentioned that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Avis Electronics - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 has held "that insistence on document evidencing Payment of duty on the inputs as prescribed by Rules is not a technicality to be complied for availing Modvat credit...... When a particular thing is directed to be performed in a manner prescribed by Rules, it should be performed in that manner itself and not otherwise." The ld. SDR also mentioned that the Appellants have relied upon the decision in the case of Timber Products v. CCE, Bhubneswar - 1998 (24) RLT 174 (T) which is not applicable to the facts of the present matter as the stamp of the Octroi on invoice clearly proved that the said copy of ....