2001 (2) TMI 567

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....haram, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The brief facts in this case are that the appellants, M/s. Janta Ball Bearing Store, Kashmere Gate, Delhi were registered as a Trader under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, they were entitled to issue invoices under Rule 57GG to pass on Modvat credit to their customers. They availed Modvat credit of Rs. 50,310/- on the stren....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te copy of the purchase invoice had been lost on 22-8-1995 when their Accountant was bringing it for defacing. They stated that they had also lodged an FIR for this incidence. However, they were issued a show cause notice dated 18-9-1995 by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, MOD-VI, New Delhi, in which it was alleged that they had contravened the provisions of Rule 57GG inasmuch as they ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8. 4. The present appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate for the appellants and Shri K. Panchatcharam, JDR for the Revenue. The ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the departmental authorities have not denied them the Modvat credit availed on the strength of duplicate copy of invoice (which was subsequently lost)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7GG is violated by the appellants and under which particular provision of Rule 173Q, the penalty is liable to be imposed on them. The ld. JDR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and pleads for upholding the imposition of the penalty on the appellants. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. As rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the ....