RAJASTHAN SYNTHETIC INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both the sides, I think, the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of. Accordingly, I allow the present application and proceed to deal with the appeal,

(2.) THE appellants had taken Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 69,231/ - on inputs in June, 1994 on the strength of an invoice issued by M/s. B.B. Enterprises (supplier of the inputs) who were the consignment agents of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (manufacturer of the inputs). The Department issued a show cause notice proposing to disallow this credit on the ground that the invoice issued by the consignment agent did not appear to be a valid document under Rule 57G(2) for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit. The proposal was contested by the party. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, who adjudicated the dispute, passed an order disallowing the credit to the party and imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 5,000/ -. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty but affirmed the rest of the decision of the lower authority. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) HEARD both the sides. The Chartered Accountant for the appellants submits that the finding recorded by the original and first appellate authorities, for denying the Modvat credit, is that the inputs covered by the invoice were not lying in stock with M/s. B.B. Enterprises as on 31 -3 -94 and the invoice issued by Consignment Agent in respect of goods received from manufacturer after 31 -3 -94 was not admissible for availment of Modvat credit. It was also found by the authorities that M/s. B.B. Enterprises, as Commission Agent, were not authorised to issue Modvatable invoices. It is further submitted by the Chartered Accountant that none of the lower authorities has cared to examine the genuineness of the invoice and the duty -paid character of the goods covered thereunder, in terms of the Board's directives in Circular No. 165/76/95 -CX., dated 18 -12 -95. I have heard the DR also. He seeks to defend the impugned order on the strength of the findings contained therein.