Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2002 (2) TMI 1142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....28/30 November, 1998 issued by M/s. Tannen Poles & Tubes (P) Ltd., Ludhiana. Copies of these four invoices are available on record. On the top margin of each of these documents "first stage dealer" is seen printed. Each of these documents bears the seal of the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Ludhiana, beside an initial, purportedly that of the Superintendent. It is clear from the documents that these were issued by M/s. Tannen Poles & Tubes (P) Ltd. as second stage dealer. The department however, proposed to disallow the Modvat credit taken on the strength of these invoices, alleging that the, invoices were not shown to have been issued by second stage dealer and not pre-authenticated by the proper officer of Central Excise. The propo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....goods as also receipt of the goods and utilisation thereof in the process of manufacture of final products have been fully satisfied by the manufacturer of the final products :- (i)      M/s. Indian Hume Pipes v. CCE [1998 (103) E.L.T. 77 (Tribunal)] (ii)     Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (106) E.L.T. 104]. 5. On pre-authentication issue, ld. Counsel submits that the adjudicating authority has held in its order that the invoices had been pre-authenticated as required under Notification No. 23/95-C.E., dated 30-5-95 (as amended) issued under Rule 57G. This finding of the adjudicating authority has not been interfered with by the lower appellate authority. Counsel, therefore, prays for setti....