2005 (1) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bipin Verma, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Appellants are seeking stay of recovery of Rs. 5,32,623.20 and penalty of Rs. 51,000/-. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate states that the demand was raised against the appellants on the ground that they have taken Modvat credit on the basis of the invoices issued by the dealers who were not registered. The period of dispute is from July to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erent premises than the premises which is shown in the invoice. Therefore, these invoices are not valid documents. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. In July, 1994 when the notification was issued for registration of dealers, at that time the appellants were issuing invoices even without registration and only giving all the particulars of the duty paid on inputs. ....