JCT LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal is whether Modvat credit is available to the appellants on the original copy of the invoice when duplicate was lost.

(2.) SHRI Rupendra Singh, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants pleaded that the duplicate copy of the invoice pertaining to the goods i.e. Mono Ethylene Glycol which were being transported by the tanker, was lost on the way. The lower authorities have found fault with the FIR which was lodged at Delhi on the ground that the goods were being transported from Surat to Hoshiarpur then why FIR was lodged at Delhi. The other ground for denying the Modvat credit was that the Assistant Commissioner stated in his order that the appellants; took credit on 30.6.99 and applied for availment of credit on 27.7.98 enclosing copy of affidavit dated 22.6.98 of the driver of the vehicle. Shri Rupendra Singh, learned advocate, pleaded that on coming to the notice of the loss, FIR was lodged immediately at Delhi and Superintendent of the Range was also informed on 22.6.98 about the loss of duplicate copy. Subsequently, they applied to the Assistant Commissioner on 22.7.1998 informing that they have taken credit as there is restriction under Rule 57G(5) of the Rules for claiming credit within 6 months from the date of the issue of the duty paying documents. He pleads that there is no dispute regarding receipt of the goods in the factory and utilization of the same in the manufacture of the finished products. Therefore, credit should not be denied to them. He relied on the following decisions and pleaded that the credit should not be denied to the appellants.

(3.) SHRI S. Bhatnagar, learned JDR, appearing for the Revenue pleaded that the lower authorities have given finding that the Assistant Commissioner was not satisfied about the loss of the duplicate copy as he was informed on 22.7.98 and the copy of the affidavit of the driver does not give vehicle number. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (69) ECC 272 (LB) : 2000 (117) ELT 571, wherein it was held that a combined reading of Rule 52A(3), first proviso to Rule 57G(2) and Rule 57G(2A) makes it clear that a manufacturer could take credit only on the basis of the duplicate copy of the invoice and where the duplicate copy has been lost in transit, he could take credit on the basis on the original copy of the invoice provided he satisfies the Assistant Collector about the loss of the duplicate copy. He stated that the Trade Notice issued by the Chandigarh Collectorate was not followed by the appellants and hence the Assistant Commissioner was not satisfied about the loss of the duplicate copy.