Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - (1.) THE department has preferred this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 7 -2 -2007 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
(2.) THE assessee claims Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as amended on 9 -2 -1999 (for short "the Rules"). The adjudicating authority allowed the said claim holding that the goods were actually received by the assessee and were used in manufacturing. The appellate authority reversed the said view on the ground that the invoice was not issued by the registered dealer as required under the Rules. The Tribunal restored the view of the adjudicating authority by holding as under: I find in this case, the appellant in addition to the invoices issued by the dealer also received the invoices issued by the manufacturer where the appellant's name mentioned as consignee. In addition to this, the appellant also produced certificate from the manufacturer showing payment of duty invoices wise, it is also certified that the goods were supplied to the appellant. Further, I find that now Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules has been amended to the effect that credit shall not be denied if all the particulars are not mentioned in the document and such documents contained details of payment of duty, description, assessable value, name and address of the factory. The Large Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steels after relying upon the Board's circular held that this amendment is applicable to the pending cases also. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) THE substantial questions of law, sought to be raised on behalf of the department, are as under: (i) Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's was right in allowing Modvat credit under Rule 57G of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 on invoices which were not the specified documents under the ibid rule being not in the name of the respondents ? (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal can overrule the statutory provisions of Rule 57G of the Rules? (iii) Can the learned Tribunal overlook its Larger Bench decision in case of Avis Electronics reported as and Balmer Lawrie v. on the ground of the respondents producing certificates of supplier -manufacturers on a later date after issue of invoices for supply of goods?;