SWADESHI KOREATEX Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this case is the admissibility of modvat credit on the basis of photocopy of duplicate copy of invoice in the event of loss of duplicate copy. The learned C.A. on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant availed credit on the strength of original copy of the invoice. He drew attention of the bench reply to show cause notice that the appellant had taken credit on the basis of the original invoices as the duplicate copy was taken away by the Sales Tax Authorities when the goods were in transit from the supplier. He submits that there is no dispute that the appellant received the inputs in their factory and duty was paid on such inputs. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab High Court in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Ralson India Ltd. .

(2.) THE learned authorized representative (DR) reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen from the reply to show cause notice that the appellant took a definite stand that they availed credit on the basis of original copy of the invoice as the duplicate copy was taken away by the Sales Tax Authorities. Sub -rule (6) of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules 1944, provides that a manufacturer may take credit on inputs received in his factory on the basis of original invoice, if duplicate copy of the invoice has been lost in transit, subject to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner that the inputs have been received in his factory and the duty was paid on such inputs. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that if it is accepted the contention of the appellant that credit has been taken on the basis of original copy of invoice even then as per CEGAT judgment, credit is not available as proper procedure for regularization has not been followed.