Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Amal Rasayan Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 19 April, 1993

Aegis Chemical Indus. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 21 December, 1998

"There is no dispute with regard to the duty paid nature of the inputs received. There is also no dispute with regard to the receipt of inputs and its use in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable declared final product. The assessee has availed Modvat credit on the basis of invalid duty paying documents which were not showing the required particulars. Therefore, they have submitted the copies of duplicate invoices duly rectified with proper attestation. Therefore, this is only a technical lapse. As it is a fact that inputs are received and used in the manufacture of final product, such Modvat credit cannot be denied due to procedural deviation. What is important is the production of genuine/documents and the defects which are remediable can be cured subsequently. My above view is based on the case in respect of Amal Rasayan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1998 (87) E.L.T. 133 and Mangalore Chemical & Fertilisers Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner, 1991 (56) E.L.T. 437".
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Beepee Coating Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Customs on 21 May, 1996

In his submission, therefore whatever defect existed as the documents, were duly rectified subsequently, referring to the decision of this Bench in Amal Rasayan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1993 (67) E.L.T. 133 (Tribunal). He submits that therefore, subsequent rectification in the documents would be sufficient and the Modvat credit availed of on the documents subsequently rectified, is permissible. He therefore submits that here is a case where Modvat credit is wrongly denied, however, for the purpose of compliance with the requirement of Section 35F, he is prepared to give Bank Guarantee upto 25% of the duty amount demanded or deposit the amount upto 10% of the duty demanded.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S. Chandrapur Vidyut Conductors Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur on 13 March, 2001

2. Certain inputs were utilised by the appellants on the strength of four gate passes issued by M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. Three gate passes bearing serial No. 2292, 2293 and 2409 were covering stock transfer to their own godowns. These gate passes were endorsed by their stockyard keepers to M/s. Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. Chandrapur, which admittedly the appellants are not. The 4th gate pass bearing Serial No. 2410 is so endorsed to M/s. Chandrapur Vidyut Conductors Pvt. Ltd. which is the name of the appellants unit. Shri G L Deshpande attempted to claim the credit where the gate passes wee not endorsed to their own unit by taking shelter the Tribunal judgement in the case of Amal Rasayan Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1993 (67) ELT 133 (Tribunal).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1