PURVI ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On hearing both sides, it appeared that the issue being short, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of predeposit as prayed for.

(2.) The appellants were dealers registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. They received certain goods under an invoice and took credit on the original copy of the invoice on 21.3.1995. On 22.5.95 they applied for permission to take such credit. They placed on record challans issued by the seller, copies of the transported documents etc. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner disallowed credit vide his order dt. 29.11.1995. This order was reversed by the appellate Commissioner remanding the matter back for re -adjudication specifically directing the Assistant Commissioner to follow the Tribunal judgment in the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (87) ELT 387 (Tribunal)]. The Assistant Commissioner distinguished the facts before him, did not follow the ratio of the judgment and reconfirmed the reversal of credit of Rs.1,37,500/ -. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the orders, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) In the cited judgment the Tribunal had observed certain efforts made by the assessee to establish the lots of duplicate invoices. The facts would differ marginally in each case. It was therefore not correct on part of the original authority to distinguish the facts before him from those which led to the cited judgment. On the basis of the representation, there should have been no reason for the Assistant Commissioner to have denied the facility. The ground that there was inordinate delay was also not a valid ground for refusal for condonation as has been brought out by the Tribunal judgment in the case of Sharanpur Engg. Works. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, [1998 (102) ELT 380 (Tribunal)].