HARMIRPUR ALLOYS PVT. LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. application was filed for out of turn hearing of the appeal. The stay application was also taken up for hearing.

(2.) SHRI R. Santhanam, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants pleaded that the appellants have taken credit in their Modvat Account on the basis of invoices issued by the dealers but the department issued show cause notice denying the credit on the ground that the dealers are not registered. The dealers got themselves registered before December 1994 and this fact was submitted before the original authority. The original authority accepted the registration certificate in respect of one dealer and accordingly modified the demand. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit to the appellants on the ground that the invoice does not contain the required particulars as provided under Notification No. 15/94 -CE (NT) although they got registration on 15.7.94 and he also held that M/s. Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd. has also not registered themselves and the invoice given by them also do not contain all the particulars contained in Notification No. 15/94 -CE (NT). The Ld. Advocate pleaded that they submitted the registration certificate of M/s. Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd. as given in sub -para -3 (iv) of the Order -in -Appeal. He also stated that since there was no allegation in the show cause notice regarding particulars of Notification No. 15/94 -CE not given, therefore, these cannot be taken as the ground for denying the credit by the Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) SHRI Bipin Verma, Ld. JDR stated that under Notification No. 64/94 -CE (NT) dated 7.11.94 Rule 57H was amended and invoices issued by the dealers were considered as valid, who had taken registration upto December 1994. He also stated that in the said Notification, only those documents will be taken as valid where the particulars as provided under Notification No. 15/94 -CE (NT) are given. He stated that since these particulars were not given in the documents which were originally submitted before the department, therefore, the adjudicating and appellate authority took these particulars into account while denying the credit. He, therefore, pleaded that the credit was correctly denied to the appellants and stay should not be granted to them.