2005 (1) TMI 542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants pleaded that the appellants have purchased inputs from M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Company Ltd., Chandigarh. M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., Baroda removed 631.200 BU of potassium Pencillin G on payment of appropriate excise duty to their depot at Chandigarh under invoice No. 85 dated 12-3-1998 and another quantity of potassium crystal weighing 4769.600. Bus was cleared under invoice No. 21560, dated 4-3-1998 to their depot at Chandigarh. Appellants had purchased these goods from Chandigarh depot of M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. under Invoice No. 86, dated 12-2-1998. M/s Alembic Chemicals Works Co. Ltd., Baroda paid differential duty and obtained two certificates both dated 8-6-19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of the issue of such invoices. Therefore, the credit cannot be denied to them. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Modi Xerox Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 140 where it was held that on supplementary invoice issued by the supplier of inputs, credit cannot be taken after six months from the date of such invoice. 3. Shri Bipin Verma, learned JDR, appearing for the Revenue pleaded that Rule 57G of the Rules prescribes the documents on the basis of which the credit can be taken. This rule does not mention the supplementary invoice.  Therefore, the appellants have taken credit on the basis of the certificate issued by the proper officer under Rule 57E. Since the appellants have taken credit afte....