(1.) This is a petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for directing the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court :-
(2.) Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It has been availing Modvat credit. During 1994, respondent No. 1 availed Modvat credit of Rs. 4,23,237/-. On checking, RT-12 returns furnished by it, the competent authority issued notice dated 30-11-1994 to respondent No. 1 requiring it to show cause as to why Modvat credit availed by it may not be disallowed. After considering the reply filed in response to the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority passed order dated 16-9-1996 and disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,74,542/- availed by respondent No. 1 under Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, 'the Rules'). The concerned authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 7;500/- under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Rules. The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. However, the Tribunal accepted the second appeal filed by respondent No. 1 and restored the Modvat credit availed by it. The Tribunal held that Modvat credit of Rs. 2,686/- had been availed by respondent No. 1 on the basis of invoices issued by the wholesale dealer/distributor of the manufacturer and the stamp of the manufacturer contained all the details regarding the discharge of the duty liability in respect of the raw material sold to respondent No. 1. In respect of the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,71,856/-which was disallowed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that extra copy of the invoice was not a proper document for claiming Modvat credit, the Tribunal observed as under :-
(3.) Shri M.S. Guglani, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that certificate dated 26-5-1994 issued by the Steel Authority of India Limited could not be relied upon by respondent No. 1 for availing Modvat credit because the original invoices were not endorsed to it. He further argued that the Tribunal committed a serious error by restoring Modvat credit of Rs. 2,686/- ignoring the fact that invoices produced by respondent No. 1 did not indicate whether the raw material had been supplied by the wholesale dealer/distributor of the manufacturer and duty had been paid by the latter.