TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same. Appeal No. E/540/03-Mum 1.1 An amount of Rs. 2,59,812.42 has been denied on the ground that the invoices on the basis of which the credit has been taken were not having preprinted serial numbers. It was submitted that out of total 161 invoices, 156 invoices involves an amount of Rs. 2,50,065.64 were having computer generated serial number and as per CBEC Circular dated 7-3-96, computer generated serial numbers are to be treated as pro-printed serial numbers. Reliance was also placed on the decisions reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 77, 2001 (131) E.L.T. 196, 2001 (138) E.L.T. 411, 2004 (175) E.L.T. 564, 2007 (211) E.L.T. 275, 2008 (222) E.L.T. 470. 1.2 Ld. DR agreed that as per CBEC circular and as per decisions cited, credit cann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Liquidator, Petrofiles Co-Ops. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-I, 2005 (192) E.L.T. 453 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein it has been held that the bar of six months for taking credit from the date of issue of duty paying documents does not apply to certificate issued under Rule 57E of erstwhile Central Excise Rules as the provision of Rule 57G are independent of provisions relating to Rule 57E. 3.2 Following the decision in the case of Liquidator, Petrofiles Co-Ops. Ltd. (supra), I hold that the credit cannot be denied and accordingly Revenue is directed to allow the credit of Rs. 41,833.05 and the Commissioner (Appeals) order in respect of this ground is accordingly set aside. 4.1 Modvat credit availed on extra copy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was submitted that an amount of Rs. 1,33,394.03 has been denied on the account of quantification mistake committed while confirming demand. It was submitted that total credit denied in the show cause notice came to Rs. 3,02,174.97 and not Rs. 4,35,569/- and hence there was a quantification mistake of Rs. 1,33,394.03. This was pointed out to the adjudicating authority but no finding on the same has been given. 6.2 I have considered the submission. Since this is a calculation mistake, the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner to look into this mistake pointed out by the appellants and if found correct, the mistake should be rectified by reducing the amount incorrectly demanded. Appeal No. E/541/03-Mum. 7.1 Excess credit ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment and was in accordance with Trade Notice No. 89 of 1989 dated 3-11-89 issued by Bombay-I Collectorate. They have also submitted specimen copy of the invoice involved therein. However, both the lower authorities have failed to take cognizance of the same and denied the credit without looking into the documents involved. He referred to the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 538, 1997 (94) E.L.T. 354, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 533 where inputs received under gate pass showing nil rate of duty but containing cross reference to original gate pass under which duty paid on clearance before they were returned for repair, re-processing etc. under Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held to be admissible ad those orders also ....