2007 (7) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cture of paints and varnishes. It appeared to the Revenue that requirement of the provisions of Rules 52A and 57GG to avail Modvat credit was not fulfilled in some documents, which are enumerated in the order-in-original. We are concerned in this appeal only with one such document, which was invoice No. 1932 dated 21-9-1994 issued by Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (TTP) in the name of Kerala Industrial Products Trading Corporation Ltd. (KSIPTCL), because the learned counsel made it clear that the appeal was confined only to that item which was held against the appellant. 3. It was alleged in paragraph (viii) of the show cause notice dated 2-3-1995, that as per the RG.23A Part II entry at Sl. No. 594 dated 1-10-1994 an amount of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct of KSIPTCL. It was held that since KSIPTCL was not shown to be commission agent of TTP, the invoice in question did not qualify the conditions. The Modvat claim in respect thereof was, therefore, disallowed and this part of the order came to be confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by simply observing that KSIPTCL should have got itself registered. 6. Both the sides repeated the same contentions, which were raised before the authorities below. 7. It is evident from the record that the appellant specifically pleaded in the reply that it had claimed Modvat credit under the original invoice issued under Rule 52A by the manufacturer, i.e., TTP. On perusal of the invoice No. 1932, a copy of which is on record, it appears tha....