1999 (8) TMI 891

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the appellants, who are manufacturers of man made yarn, on the following two grounds : (i)      Invoices on which credit was taken, were issued by a registered dealer (M/s. Banswara Syntex Ltd.) without getting the registration certificate revalidated due to non-supply of additional information as required in terms of Trade Notice No. 10/95, dated 21-2-1995, thus rendering the registration invalid for Modvat purposes with effect from 16-3-1995, and in turn resulting in such invoices not being valid documents for Modvat purposes; (ii)     Invoices issued after 1-8-1985 on which credit was taken were not pre-authenticated by the Central Excise authorities as directed under Notification No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....credit. 3. The case law cited before us by the learned SDR is distinguishable. In the case of Adarsh Engg. Works reported in [1996 (88) E.L.T. 501], denial of Modvat credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by a unregistered dealer, was set aside on the ground of time bar and only the penalty under Rule 173-Q for contravention of Rule 57G was sustained. This decision does not support the proposition of the learned DR that credit is not available on invoices issued by an unregistered dealer. 4. The decisions in the case of Jayana Time Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [1997 (93) E.L.T. 245] and Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Anupam Products Ltd. reported in [1999 (107) E.L.T. 3....