CCE, JAIPUR Vs. TIRUHARI (INDIA) P. LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application filed by the Revenue is for reference of the following question to High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act:

(2.) I have carefully perused the final order as well as the grounds of the present applications. I have also heard ld. JDR Shri K.Panchatcharan for the applicants and ld. Advocates S/Shri G.K.Mahajan and S.C.Karma for the respondents. Ld. JDR submits that, as per the final order, the Tribunal held that Modvat credit on inputs could be validly taken on the strength of copy of registered dealer's invoice marked as "duplicate for transporter" under the provisions of Rule 57GG read with those of Rule 57G and Rule 52A and that, if the dealer has issued such invoice on the basis of original copy (instead of duplicate copy for transporter) of input -manufacturer's invoice, the same would be only a minor defect of technical nature and further that the benefit of Modvat credit is not liable to be denied merely on account of such minor defect. Ld. JDR further draws my attention to the provisions of the above rules and submits that the question of law as framed in these applications has arisen out of the above decision of the Bench. He wants this question to be referred to the High Court.

(3.) LD . Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it was not in dispute in the appeal that the dealer's invoice was valid for purposes of availment of Modvat credit and therefore a question of law as framed by the Revenue can hardly arise out of the order of the Bench wherein it was clearly recorded that the dealer's invoice was admittedly a valid document for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit. Counsel, therefore, prays for rejecting the applications.