2007 (4) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Registration was 31-12-1994, the Respondent should not have been granted Modvat credit. Therefore, such an error apparent from the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) requires intervention. In support of the contention, the Ld. SDR appearing for Revenue submitted that the facts of the case remained undisputed so far as the date of registration of the dealer issuing modvatable invoice was concerned. Also he submitted that the issuing dealers were Central PSUs. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Kanpur reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal) was relied by him for supporting order of Adjudication. Therefore, the Modvat credit granted by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) on the basis ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the case of Vimal Enterprise & Another v. UOI & Ors. reported in 2005 (69) RLT 403 (Guj.). He, further, submitted that the Balmer Lawrie judgment reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal) was made on 10-1-00 whereas the judgment by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat was the latest decision made on 4th July, 2005. The Hon'ble High Court in page 16 of the reported judgment made it clear that for no fault of the Assessee he should not be prejudiced and further relying on para 18 of the reported judgment, he submitted that there is no reason why the benefit to the Respondent shall be denied when the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court resulted with the relief in para 20 of the judgment. In para 20 of the judgment, it was found that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t-off date. There would be various circumstances, on the basis of which the registering authority, may not issue the certificate by so called due date. A simple example would be, absence of the registration authority, being on leave and charge being available with some other officer, who because of more pressing work may not attend to the work for which he holds additional charge, and in such circumstances to expect that the dealer must obtain registration by due date would be asking almost for the imposable, especially from the assessee who is merely a purchaser. Therefore, the denial of Modvat benefit only on this technical plea is not justified in law, especially when all other requirements have been fulfilled by the supplying dealer." (....