ARIHANT TEXTURED YARN Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter relates to the availment of modvat credit by the appellants on the original copy of two invoices bearing No. 165581 and 165582 both dated 20,6.1997 issued by M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., Surat. The appellants pleaded before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Division that the duplicate for transporter copy of these invoices were lost in transit and an Affidavit to this effect from the transporter along with the forwarding letter of the consignor M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. was also submitted. The appellants requested for the grant of permission to take the modvat credit on the original copies of these invoices under rule 57G(2A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The request of the party was however, rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 4.2.1998. The Assistant Commissioner in his order has observed that since the material obtained under the impugned invoices could not be verified by the RO before consumption and the party did not follow the procedure of trade notice No. 111/94, therefore, request for availing the modvat credit amount to Rs. 1,62,215/ - has been rejected. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh dismissed the appeal of the party upholding the order passed by the original authority. I have heard Shri N.K. Thaman, Advocate for the appellants and Shri V.M. Udhoji, JDR for the respondents. It is contended by ld. Advocate for the appellants that though it is true that the modvat credit on the original copy of the invoice can be availed subject to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner in the event of the loss of the duplicate copy, but in this case the Assistant Commissioner has not verified any of the statutory documents and the other evidence maintained by the party to satisfy him that goods were actually received and used in the manufacture of the final products. The request for availing the modvat credit on the original copies of the invoices has been rejected only on the ground that the goods were not verified before consumption. I have considered, these submissions. In my view, the prior physical verification of the goods for availing the modvat credit thereon is not the condition precedent under the rules applicable in this case. Even if such condition is prescribed under the trade notice, the same would not be enforceable. The ld. Advocate for the appellants submitted that given the opportunity, his clients would be in a position to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner with regard to the receipt of the goods covered by the impugned invoices and their use in the manufacture of the final products. Consequently, I set aside the order passed by the lower appellate authority and remand the matter to the original authority to verify the receipt of the goods and their use in the manufacture of final products covered by the impugned invoices, and pass a speaking order with respect to the availability of the modvat credit thereon. The matter is thus remanded for de novo consideration to the original authority. The appellants shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to state their case before passing the final order in the matter.