BHARAT INDL. WORKS (P) LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Bharat Industrial Works (P) Ltd., is whether the Modvat Credit of the duty is available to them on the strength of invoice marked as "duplicate for transporter" by hand.

(2.) When the matter was called on one was present on behalf of the Appellants, nor was there any request for adjournment. I, therefore, heard Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R. and perused the records. In this matter the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs has been disallowed as the words "duplicate for transporter" were written by hand. The Modvat Credit had been taken by the Appellants on the basis of invoices issued by the registered dealer during the period October 1994 and November 1994. The Appellants have submitted that the requirement of marking the invoice as duplicate for transporter came into operation only w.e.f. 2.11.94 in terms of Raipur Collectorate Trade Notice No. 41/94 dated 2,11.94. The Appellants have, further, submitted that the invoices dated 10.9.94 are, therefore, not covered by the said requirement had as far as invoices dated November 94 are concerned the Modvat Credit cannot be denied as the said requirement was newly introduced and the dealers issuing the invoices were not aware of the same. It has also been mentioned in the memorandum of appeal that the Commissioner (Appeals) had also rejected their appeal as certain details were also not mentioned in the invoices such as time of removal and amount of duty was not written in words. The appellants have contended that these are procedural requirement on the basis of which substantial right of benefit of Modvat Credit cannot be denied. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Okasa Ltd., 2001 (127) ELT 184 (Tribunal).

(3.) I have considered the submissions. I observe that under the Central Excise Rules there was no requirement of taking Credit on any particular copy of invoice before 19.1.95 when the Rule 57GG was amended providing for availment of Credit on the strength of duplicate copy of invoice. As in the present matter the invoice pertains to the period October, and November, 1994 the same were valid documents for the purpose of taking Modvat Credit. Further, the other, particulars missing in the invoice were of the nature of curable defects on account of which Modvat Credit need not be disallowed. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.