BIRLA VXL LIMITED Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) Appellants filed this appeal against the Order -in -Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the benefit of modvat credit was denied on the ground that the invoice issued by the dealer does not contain the particular as provided under Notification No. 15/94 -CE.

(3.) The contention of the appellants is that Notification No. 15/94 -CE dated 30.3.94 provides certain requirements which were to be complied by the dealer while issuing the invoices. The invoices on the strength of which the credit was denied were prior to 30.3.94. The contention of the appellants is also that with the invoices issued by the dealer they had also produced G.P. 1 issued by the manufacturer of the goods which were also duly endorsed in their favour. The contention of the appellants is that now Rule 57 -G has been amended by Notification No. 7/99 which is also applicable to the removal of the goods. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2004 (92) ECC 230 (LB) : 2000 (121) ELT 247.