2000 (1) TMI 929

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order]. -  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 b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....these were meant for transporters. The Assistant 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m the above referred printing, it can easily be ascertained whether the invoices 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 no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....zy Candies & Sweets (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 1998 (102) E.L.T. 161 (T) wherein the words 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....