2004 (3) TMI 664

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ued to the appellants proposing denial of Modvat credit of the respective amounts solely on the ground that the appellants had taken credit on the basis of the duty paying documents in respect of capital goods on which the duty was paid by the contractor or the job worker, who undertook the job of initial setting up, renovation, etc. of the plant on behalf of the manufacturer of the final product. The show cause notice alleges that in terms of Rule 57T(3) or Rule 57T(7) as re-numbered, subsequently, the credit was taken without obtaining necessary permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. Hence, the credit was not admissible. The adjudicating authority in his discussion in the impugned order observed as under :- "........

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that, the show cause notice does not indicate any grounds of ineligibility except making an allegation to the effect that, there was a failure to obtain necessary permission from the Assistant Commissioner in terms of proviso to Rule 57T(3) = Rule 57T(7). 6. The Assistant Commissioner's order, however goes on to elaborate as mentioned above alleging therein that the necessary contract documents/ agreements/terms of conditions were required to be filed along with the invoices. The order goes beyond the ambit of the show cause notice. In any case, it is not forthcoming from the observations recorded in the order-in-original, as to whether the documents submitted by the appellants contained any deficiency or lack of information as reg....