Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Bhushan Metallic Ltd. vs C.C.E., Chandigarh on 11 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(138)ELT1028(TRI-DEL)
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The Add1. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I vide his Order dt. 30.9.96 inter alia disallowed the modvat credit to the appellants amounting to Rs. 30,839.91 availed by them on the strength of documents issued by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. relating to the `furnace oil'. It was claimed by the party that they had produced duplicate copies of the invoices to the Range Officer and therefore, it was contended that since the documents had been produced before the competent authority, the objection would not merit to be sustained. The Add1. Commissioner in her order has observed that the prescribed document evidencing payment of duty is the duplicate copies of the invoices which had not been produced before her either by the 1d. Advocate of the notice party or by the notice party.It is further stated that the Adjudicating Authority checked up from the jurisdictional Range Office and it had been reported by the Supdt., Central Excise Range-II, Derabassi vide certificate dt. 29.8.96 that the notice party had not submitted the duplicate copies of invoices in respect of this amount, for which, they were issued a show cause notice. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand on the appellants.
2. The party filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. The Appellate Authority vide his Order dt. 30.9.96 dismissed the appeal of the party upholding the order passed by the Add1. Commissioner.
3. This is the second stage appeal of the party.I have heard Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K.Jain, JDR for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the prescribed documents for the purpose of availing the modvat credits are only the duplicate copies of invoices which alleged to have not been filed by the appellants. On specific quiry, the 1d.Counsel for the appellants was not able to show any evidence of the submission of the duplicate copies of invoices to the Range Officer as claimed by his clients.There is also no averment as to on which date the same were submitted to the concerned authority. Under these circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Original Authority that the duplicate copies of invoices were not submitted by the appellants and therefore, the modvat credit claimed on the strength of these documents is not admissible to them.
4. The appeal therefore fails and the same is accordingly rejected.
(Pronounced and distated in the Court).