CCE, NEW DELHI Vs. HARYANA COATED PAPER MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has filed this application claiming that certain questions of law have arisen form Final Order No. A/1229/98 -NB(SM) passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. F/1204/98 -NB.

(2.) ON a careful examination of the records, I find that the only question involved in the Revenue's appeal was whether an invoice marked as "duplicate for transporter" with rubber stamp was a valid invoice for the purpose of availing modvat credit. It is further noted that the Tribunal answered the said question in the affirmative and rejected the Revenue's appeal by following the earlier decision in the case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Wires Ltd. [1998 (29) RLT 79 (CEGAT). The Tribunal held that the expression "marking" occurring under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules implied not only printing but also marking in any other manner such as by stamping. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted invoices with rubber stamped -marking "duplicate for transporter" as valid document for availment of modvat credit. the Revenue, in the present application, has formulated two questions which are claimed to have arisen as questions of law from the Final Order ibid. The following are the two questions.

(3.) I have heard both sides.