SHRI RAM RAYONS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, the Department states that there is an apparent error in Final Order No. A/372/2002 -NB (SM), dated 7 -3 -2002 passed by this Bench in Appeal No. E/139/2001 -NB (SM). The mistake pointed out by the applicant is in relation to Modvat credit of Rs. 66,595/ -which was allowed by this Bench. The applicant states that the invoices of M/s. Chayya Corporation (supplier of inputs), on the strength of which the credits totalling to Rs. 66,595/ - had been taken, did not bear the marking, "duplicate for transporter". The Bench, however, did no examine this aspect while holding that the above credit was admissible to the assessee. The only question that was considered by the Bench in the context of determining the admissibility of the above credit was whether the credit was liable to be allowed on blue copies of supplier's invoices. The applicant submits that the non -consideration of whether the marking "duplicate for transporter" was there or not on each of the invoices issued by M/s. Chayya Corporation is a mistake apparent from the record which requires to be rectified.

(2.) Ld. JDR reiterates the grounds of this application and submits that, in respect of the credit of Rs. 66,595/ -, the show -cause notice had inter alia alleged that the relevant invoices did not bear the marking "duplicate for transporter". This allegation was denied by the assessee in their reply to the show -cause notice. This dispute was duly examined by the original authority. That authority recorded a finding that the invoices had not been marked "duplicate for transporter" when the documents were used by the assessee for taking the credit. The original authority found that it was only after taking the credit that the assessee marked the invoices as "duplicate for transporter". The lower appellate authority affirmed the decision of the original authority. The ld. DR, therefore, submits that, in respect of the above Modvat credit/the final order passed by this Bench is erroneous inasmuch as the above vital aspect was not considered by the Bench.

(3.) Ld. Counsel for the respondents in this application submits that he is ready to adduce evidence to show that it was the suppliers themselves who marked the invoices as "duplicate for transporter" and not the assessee as found by the original authority. Ld. Counsel submits that a certificate issued by M/s. Chayya Corporation was produced before the adjudicating authority to show that the marking "duplicate for transporter" was made on the invoices only by them. Ld. Counsel submits that if such evidence is taken into account, the credit of Rs. 66,595/ - will still be admissible to the assessee. He prays for dismissal of the present application.