COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. TAMBRAPARANI PAINTS AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue is aggrieved with the Order -in -Appeal No. 448/2003 Pondicherry dt. 18.8.2003 as the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order -in -Original denying the claim Modvat credit on the duplicate invoice for Transporter in which there was rubber stamp markings instead of pre -printed markings. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the lower authority has accepted the fact that the main inputs were duty paid received by the appellants. He has noted the following judgment and passed the following order. "In case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Anrangabad v. Rishabh Instruments Pvt. Ltd., 2002 (149) ELT 771 (Tri -Mumbai) Hon'ble Tribunal has held that Modvat/Cen -vat -duty paying document - - Words "duplicate for transport" not printed but rubber stamped on invoices credit allowed by referring the minutes of the Regional Advisory Committee Meeting held by jurisdictional Commissioner and as at later date supplier of goods reconfirmed the number and date - - Rule 57G of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh v. Morepen Laboratories Ltd., 1999 (113) ELT 608 (T) Hon'ble Tribunal has held that Modvat -Duty paying documents - - Inscription 'duplicate for transporter' by the rubber stamp on the invoice issue by the dealers is valid under Rule 57GG of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the case of Tirupathi Adhesives (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore, 2000 (118) ELT 528 (T) Hon'ble Tribunal has held that Modvat -Duty paying documents -Multiple marking on invoices will not take away the evidentiary value of the documents when the duty paying nature of the input is established -Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Respectfully following the, ratio of the above judgments I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal."

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the Revenue Ld. DR Shri A. Jayachandran reiterates the grounds of appeal wherein it has been stated that there should be no rubber stamp marking and only pre -printed marking should be there on the duplicate invoice for transporter.

(3.) Appearing for the Respondents Ld. Consultant Shri M. Somasundram submits that the issue is no longer res integra and rubber stamp invoices can be accepted in terms of the judgments cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) which is extracted (supra).