C.C.E., NEW DELHI Vs. STEEL CRAFTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts in this case are that the respondents are the manufacturers of excisable goods namely "M.S. Tubes and Pipes" falling under Chapter heading 7306.90. They availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 66,590.45 during the month of April, 1994 without producing the duplicate copy of the two Nos. invoices under consideration. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against them vide show cause notice dt. 29.9.94. In this notice, they were called upon to show cause why the above said amount should not be recovered from them under Rule 57 -I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11 -A of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and further why a penalty under Rule 173Q should not be imposed on them for availing the modvat credit on inputs without producing duplicate copies of the invoices which are the valid documents for availing the credit under Rule 57 -G read with Rule 52 -A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On considering the reply of the party, the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Gurgaon vide Order dt. 5.5.95 observed that the party pleaded before her that the transporter's (duplicate) copies of these invoices were lost by the truck drivers and they sent a photo copies of the invoices along with the copies of the G.R. and octroi receipts of the above consignments. They submitted that they availed modvat credit on the original copies and requested that the proceedings to be dropped. The Addl. Collector in her order has observed that on the date on which the modvat credit was availed on the subject invoices, there was no provision under Rule 57 -G for allowing the modvat credit on the original copy of the invoice. Accordingly, she held that the modvat credit was not available to them and ordered for the reversal of the same.

(2.) ON appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi vide his Order dt. 19.11.94 relied on the following decision of the Tribunal, in which it is held that the credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that the credit was taken on the original copies of the invoice and not on duplicate copy.

(3.) RELYING on the ratio of the above decisions, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the party by setting aside the order passed by the Original Authority.