2000 (10) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as follows :- "To sum up, it is amply clear from the above that impugned items are used in relation to the final product but as the invoices issued by M/s. BPCI, Mathura/Shakur Basti do not fulfil various details/conditions prescribed in Notification No. 15/94, 21/94, 33/94 and 64/94, Modvat is disallowed and the demand in respect of both the Show Cause Notices is hereby confirmed." 2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad vide his order dated 24-3-98 confirmed the order of the lower authority in following terms :- "I have examined the case and considered the matter. It is observed that LDO/RFO are used in generation of electricity and as fuel in the furnace to produce steam resp. in the appellants' unit. I fully agree ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../94. Moreover, the depots were not registered with the Central Excise department as required under Notification No. 32/94. Therefore, in view of these facts, the Modvat credit taken on the RFO is not admissible to the party under Modvat rules. It is contended that on consideration of the submissions made by the appellants before the original authority the Modvat credit on the stated items is allowed to them as inputs on merits but however it is denied on the grounds that the invoices issued by M/s. BPCL did not furnish various details/particulars prescribed in the specified notifications. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that no discrepancy in furnishing the particulars has been pointed out in the show cause notice which could have ....