2006 (7) TMI 483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Since the issue has arisen from the same order in appeal, both the appeals are disposed by a common order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant availed Modvat credit during July 1995 on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Jain Udyog, Tedesra. The officers on the basis of investigation conducted at the suppliers end came to conclusion that invoices issued were only for availing the Modvat credit and no inputs moved from the supplier. They issued show cause notice on 4-8-2000 to the appellant for recovering the Modvat credit availed by them against the said invoices. The appellant contested the show cause notice on the ground of limitation and on also on merits. The adjudicating authority has confirme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso submitted that the penalty under section 11AC should not have been set aside as the show cause notice was issued after the provisions of section 11AC were brought in to statute. It is his submissions that the same arguments would hold good for the interest under section 11AB. On merits it is his submission that it has been brought on records that the registration no of the vehicle is not for the transport of goods but for agriculture work and hence the vehicle could not have transported the inputs. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides at length and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is denial of Modvat on the ground that the appellant has not received the inputs under the invoices. I find from the record....