TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (1) TMI 929
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... - This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal dated 14-6-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide which he confirmed the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27-7-1995 disallowing Modvat credit of Rs. 34,800/- to them. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under :- 3. The appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant Commissioner, however, did not agree with their contention and disallowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 34,800/- through his order-in-original dated 27-7-1998. 4. The appellants went in appeal against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, but the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal through the impugned order dated 14-6-1999. The appellants have come in appeal before this Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces on which the Modvat credit had been claimed by the appellants were original, duplicate, triplicate or quadruplicate as against each invoice the person for whom it was meant and the colour of the invoice had been indicated. Therefore, the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that it could not be ascertained that the invoices were "duplicate for transporter" on the ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rds were "duplicate or carrier copy" instead of words "duplicate for transporter" and tick mark was placed against the relevant words. It was ruled that for want of a departure from the prescribed proforma, Modvat credit could not be denied as placing a tick mark against the relevant words was sufficient to serve the same purpose and there was substantial compliance with the requirement of the Rul....