TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the part of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat credit on the goods listed at serial Nos. 5, 10, 14 and 15 detailed in Annexure-A appended to the order-in-original, in all of Rs. 32,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ady challenged a part of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for having disallowed certain amount of credit to the respondents, also on different goods. He has also further contended that even no condonation application was required to be filed by the respondents, in respect of certain items being capital goods, as there was also no delay in filing the declaration. Moreover, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds. The argument of the learned Counsel that it was only typographical error in mentioning the date in the condonation application also cannot be accepted by us for want of any evidence on record to substantiate the same. 6. Moreover, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has nowhere in his impugned order uttered any word about the typographical error on the part of the respondents in mention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. The argument of the learned Counsel that the appeal filed by the respondents is also pending against this very order, cannot carry any weight, as that has got no bearing, on the issue involved in this appeal as the items involved in that appeal are different from the items/goods subject matter of present appeal. The Modvat credit amount involved is also different. Therefore, the order pa....