(1.) THE appellant filed this appeal against the order -in -appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the credit of Rs. 31,543/ - was disallowed and penalty is imposed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a unit of State Electricity Board and are engaged in the manufacture of articles of lead, articles of iron and steel and electrical apparatus are working under the Modvat Scheme. The appellant received an order with M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. for purchase of aluminium strips. The Hindalco will supply the aluminium strips mentioned in the invoices as extrusion bars and rods and appellant availed the credit on the strength of these invoices. The credit was denied on the ground that no declaration was filed by the appellant in respect of extrusion bars and rods.
(3.) THE contention of the appellant is that they had placed an order for supply of aluminium strips size 20X6 mm confirming to IS: 50. Subsequently, the appellant also increased the quantity and in this communication also the appellants are asking for aluminium strips of size 20x6 mm. In spite of this in the invoices, M/s Hindalco mentioned the goods extrusion bars and rods. The contention is that in the invoices Contract No. 16/94 was mentioned whereby the appellant placed order for supply of aluminium strips of size 20x6 mm. The contention of the appellant is also that Rule 57G and T has been amended to the effect that credit shall not be denied on the ground that if all the particulars are not mentioned in the document. The contention is that the appellant filed a declaration whereby the input mentioned as aluminium strip and order was placed for aluminum strips but in the duty payment document these are mentioned as rods. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (40) RLT 575 whereby the Tribunal held that the amended provision of Rule 57G are applicable to the pending cases also.