TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration in this appeal is the eligibility to Modvat credit by the appellant of the duty that is shown to have been paid on the invoices issued by the dealers of the inputs. After hearing both sides, we deal with each of the grounds on which modvat has been denied, as follows: - 2. A sum of Rs. 2.21 lakhs had been denied on the ground that the invoice bore the address of the appellant's head offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d so could not have utilised the credit. The provisions of Rule 57F(1), permitting removal of the inputs for home consumption as such, would also not be available to it. It is not as if, by containing the heading office's name, credit could have been taken by the recipient in more than one factory; as we have noted, the factory was only one. There is no dispute that the goods were not received and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion has to be accepted. In the absence of any legal authority, the denial of the credit is not justified. This is the view taken by the Tribunal in its decisions in Lauls Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (41) RLT 213 and Parikh Chemical Industries v. CCE - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 598. Another objection raised with regard to these invoices is that they did not contain details of the mode of transport and time. The Comm....