2002 (1) TMI 1063

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [Order]. - This is a Revenue appeal against the order dated 15-6-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat credit to the respondents as per the particulars given below : "Modvat credit of Rs. 1,56,959/- was taken by the appellant vide RG 23A Pt. II Entry No. 226, dated 27-6-93 on the strength of an endorsed exbond Bill of Entry. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also referred to the decision of Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Bhuvaneshwar reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 948 (T) and CEGAT Bench of Bombay's decision in the case of Amal Rasayan Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 133 (T)". 2. The observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order in allowing the Modvat credit on the aforesaid documents is extracted below :....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o of the Tribunal, Modvat credit on the endorsed gate pass is allowed". 3. I have heard Shri H.C. Varma, JDR for the appellants. The respondents are not represented and the notice of hearing sent to them is returned by the postal authorities undelivered. In the Revenue appeal, it is contended that the Bill of Entry in question was originally in the name of M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in terms of Rule 57G. It is observed that both the afore-mentioned documents are in the name of same company viz., M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. The only deficiency found, is that neither 'it is' in the name of the party nor endorsed in their favour, whereas the Modvat credit is availed by their unit at Jhalawar. Since there is no other discrepancy found either in the documents or the goods received....