2006 (2) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent. [Order]. - When the stay application came up for consideration, I have perused the record and heard both sides at length and I proceed to dispose of appeal itself after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit. 2. The appellant is a central public sector undertaking. It purchased inputs from a State Government public sector unit namely, M/s. NGEF, Bangalore. Modvat credit remain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntication of G.P's by the Central Excise Officer of the consignor's end cannot be endorsed. I allow the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,51,421/-. I also drop the credit demand of Rs. 5,983/- as it was calculated twice in the Annexure to the Show Cause Notice at the Sl. Nos. 6 & 8." 4. Revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the above order. The Commissioner (Appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d gate passes. The same was not admissible at the given point of time therefore, Modvat credit is deniable in respect of consignment in question. Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue is allowed." 5. The present appeal is directed against the above finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is two-fold. One is that according to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 23-2-1999 and Board's circular. The allegation about violation of procedure is also rather strange. GPs had been returned to NGEF by the jurisdictional Central Excise Office after affixing the seal of the Superintendent. If further authentication was required to be made, it was for the Central Excise Office to do, and not for the appellant or NGEF. Perhaps, no authentication was required in view ....