2000 (5) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 45,320/- was endorsed in favour of the party. Another amount of Rs. 3,900/- of Modvat credit is taken wherein the invoice is in the name of the Head Quarters at Kanpur but the goods are consigned to the appellants. In the Order-in-Appeal it is stated that the respondents are a unit of U.P. State Yarn Co. Their Head Quarters Office and Administrative Office are at Kanpur. The company has its manufacturing units at Banda, Rasra (Ballia), Jaunpur and Meja (Allahabad). Orders for the purchase of fibres are placed from the Administrative Office at Kanpur but, the place where the goods are to be delivered is also indicated in the purchase Orders. It appears that the supplier units, by inadvertent omission, despatched the fibre meant for the Ban....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appeal of the party. 3. It is contended in the Revenue appeal that the impugned invoices were originally addressed to Kanpur and Rasra Units. The party has thus clearly contravened the provisions of Rule 57F(1) (ii) as the transfer of inputs could have been made under this Rule and not by endorsing the invoices as such. it is also pleaded that the reliance on the Board's circular is wrongly placed. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also allowed the credit of Rs. 14,800/- taken on paper cones as the said item was declared as capital goods under Rule 57T instead of inputs under Rule 57G. The Revenue has relied on the decision in the case of Paro Food Products v. CCE 1988 (38) E.L.T. 332 (T) and British Physical Laboratories v. CCE 1....