TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay Steel, Ghaziabad, who were the first and second stage dealers respectively from whom the goods were procured by them under the invoice issued under Rule 57GG. The Deputy Commissioner in his Order-in-Original placed his reliance upon another Order-in-Original No. 77/99, dated 14-9-1999 passed by the jurisdictional excise authorities against M/s. Bansal Ispat, Ghaziabad and M/s. Ajay Steel, Ghaziabad, at the back of the appellants in violation of principles of natural justice. Based on this earlier Order-in-Original, the Deputy Commissioner disallowed the Modvat credit to the appellants in this case mainly on the ground that invoices issued by M/s. SAIL to M/s. Ajay Steels, Ghaziabad, were not proper documents and hence subsequent invoices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted any irregularity in passing off the Modvat credit to the manufacturers then they should have been made party to the proceedings on any other section as per the provision of the law could have been taken against them. In the present case as a receiver of the invoices there is no violation of any rule committed by the respondents and therefore, the Modvat credit has been rightly allowed to them by the lower appellate authority." (b) M/s. Yak Paints (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Noida - 2003 (160) E.L.T. 974 (T.) = 2004 (62) RLT 862, wherein it has been held that, no credit can be denied to appellants merely because their dealer was not able to the produce duplicate copy of manufacturer's invoice. The Tribunal also observed ....