AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th of original copies of invoices on 25-6-98. They had received the inputs in their factory on 31-12-97 without the cover of any invoice. On 28-2-98, they submitted a representation to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner stating that the "duplicate for transporter" copies of the invoices had been lost from the custody of their transporter and requested that permission be granted for taking Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs, on the basis of the original copies of invoices. As no response to this representation was available for a long time, the party submitted three reminders on 26-3-98, 6-5-98 and 25-6-98. They also undertook to produce the duplicate copies of the invoices if and when they were found. The Asstt. Commissioner, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the appellants submits that, under sub-rule (6) of Rule 57G as the Rule stood at the material time, the Asstt. Commissioner was duty-bound to make a quasi-judicial decision on the question whether permission to take Modvat credit on the basis of original copies of invoices was liable to be granted to the assessee on the facts and evidence of the case. He submits that the Asstt. Commissioner has not addressed this question at all. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) also has not properly dealt with the issue. 5. Ld. JDR representing the Revenue submits that, under sub-rule (6) ibid, the assessee had no right to take Modvat Credit on the basis of original copies of invoices without prior permission from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invoices. The question whether the Modvat credit taken without prior permission of the Asstt. Commissioner under sub-rule (6) of Rule 57G was admissible or not is different from the question whether the "duplicate for transporter" copies of the invoices were actually lost in transit or not. The Asstt. Commissioner had first to record his satisfaction or otherwise on the latter question, which he did not do. The order of the Asstt. Commissioner is therefore not sustainable in law. Consequently, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) also is bad in law. I, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities insofar as the Modvat credit of Rs. 90,662/- is concerned, and allow this appeal by way of remand, directing the adj....