2008 (7) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reby the appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 6.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Gurgaon, has been dismissed. 2. In this appeal, the assessee, i.e., M/s Northern Minerals Limited, Daulatbad Road, Gurgaon was engaged in the manufacture of insecticides, pesticide, fungicides and herbicides, falling under Chapter sub-heading No.3808.10 & 3808.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing of Modvat facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 3. The adjudicating authority (Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Gurgaon) after issuing a show cause notice to the assessee proposing to deny Modvat credit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 15.4.1999. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.6.2006 remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). After remand of the case, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide its order dated 6.1.2005 allowed the appeal of the assessee while observing as under:- ".....The disallowance on Modvat credit to the extent of Rs.2,099/- has not been contested by the Ld. counsel for the appellant at the time of personal hearing. In view of the same, I uphold the impugned order to the extent of denial of the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies Limited in favour of the assessee indicating the rate of duty, gate pass number and other relevant information. The genuineness of the said document and transaction has also not been disputed. There is also no dispute with regard to the payment of duty, nature of inputs and utilization in the finished products. Learned counsel for the appellant only argued that the document against which Modvat credit could be claimed, had been prescribed in the Proviso to subrule (2) of Rule 57G of the Rules and the invoices in question were not in accordance with that Rule, therefore, the Modvat credit could not have been granted against such invoice, which, according to the learned counsel, was not a valid document. 8. After hearing the learned co....