- (1.) The present appeal arising out of the order dated 3.11.2011, passed by Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 169 of 2011, was admitted for determination of the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of Input Tax Credit merely on the grounds of technicalities when the selling dealer has shown the sales made to the appellant in his return and has duly deposited the tax on those sales (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Rule 54 are mandatory in nature -
(2.) The dispute is regarding claim of input tax credit for the period from 1.7.2009 to 31.3.2010.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the aforesaid period, the appellant purchased various consignments of non-alloy ingots of different quality. The seller of the goods is a unit covered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the 1944 Act'). The invoice-cumexcise gate pass admittedly depicted the description and price of the goods, excise duty and the sale tax charged. At the time of filing of return, the appellant claimed credit of the input tax paid at the time of purchase of the aforesaid material. As the refund was admissible to the appellant, the Assessing Authority issued notice for determination thereof. Though all the invoices and other documents were produced by the appellant before the Designated Authority, but still the claim of input tax credit on the material purchased from Sada Shiv Casting Pvt. Ltd. was rejected, vide order dated 6.9.2010. Aggrieved against the order so passed, the appellant preferred appeal, which was rejected by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala vide order dated 24.5.2011. Still further, the appellant failed in appeal before the Tribunal.;