2004 (12) TMI 608

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mono Ethylene Glycol which were being transported by the tanker, was lost on the way. The lower authorities have found fault with the F.I.R. which was lodged at Delhi on the ground that the goods were being transported from Surat to Hoshiarpur then why F.I.R. was lodged at Delhi. The other ground for denying the Modvat credit was that the Assistant Commissioner stated in his order that the appellants; took credit on 30-6-1999 and applied for availment of credit on 27-7-1998 enclosing copy of affidavit, dated 22-6-1998 of the driver of the vehicle. Shri Rupendra Singh, learned Advocate, pleaded that on coming to the notice of the loss, F.I.R. was lodged immediately at Delhi and Superintendent of the Range was also informed on 22-6-1998 abo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irst proviso to Rule 57G(2) and Rule 57G(2A) makes it clear that a manufacturer could take credit only on the basis of the duplicate copy of the invoice and where the duplicate copy has been lost in transit, he could take credit on the basis of the original copy of the invoice provided he satisfies the Assistant Collector about the loss of the duplicate copy. He stated that the Trade Notice issued by the Chandigarh Collectorate was not followed by the appellants and hence the Assistant Commissioner was not satisfied about the loss of the duplicate copy. 4.Shri Rupendra Singh, learned Advocate referred to para 10 of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of C.C.E., New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held ....