2009 (4) TMI 716

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner had dropped the proceedings against the Appellant. The Appellant are a manufacturer of footwear and in August 1997 they had purchased some chemicals from a first stage dealer M/s. Sarin Sales Corporation and had taken Modvat credit on the basis of the same. The Department issued a show cause notice to them seeking denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 43,020/- and also imposing penalty on them on the ground that the invoices of M/s. Sarin Sales Corporation, on the basis of which the Modvat credit had been taken, neither bear the words "duplicate for transporter" nor the mode of transport has been mentioned and beside this, debit of duty at the manufacturer end was also not mentioned. The Assistant Commissioner, however, vide order-in-o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s been taken had been purchased from a first stage dealer, M/s. Sarin Sales Corporation that Modvat credit has been taken on the basis of the two invoices issued by the first stage dealer, that there is no dispute about the receipt of the inputs by the Appellant, that the copies of the invoice on which the Modvat credit has been taken are duplicate invoices and that just because the mode of transport is not mentioned and the duty debit at the manufacturer's end is not mentioned and the invoices do not bear the words "Duplicate for Transport", the Modvat credit cannot be denied. He emphasized that the Assistant Commissioner had given a clear finding that the invoices are duplicate invoices and mentioning the words - "duplicate for transport ....