ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Appeals, Allahabad dated 31-12-1996.
2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturers of electric transformers. They had opted to avail Modvat facility and maintained proper records. They had received one consignment of declared input of D.P.C. Aluminium Wire from M/s. Arihant Udyog, Shahdara vide invoice No. 153, dated 27-2-1995 and taken Modvat credit in RG 23A Part II. The input was used in the manufacture of transformers, their final product and appropriate duty was paid at the time of the latters removal. They had also filed monthly RT12 return with relevant documents along with the duplicate copy of the invoice received from the transporter. The duplicate copy submitted was duly stamped by the Sales Tax Department who had exercised check in transit at the check post. In spite of it they received the show cause notice proposing to deny the credit taken. The A.C. passed the order denying the credit and imposing penalty. The Commissioner also confirmed the order. It was however, their contention that the goods were actually transported under the duplicate invoice as required and the benefit cannot be denied merely because the transporter’s copy was not ticked. Furthermore the original copy was also presented before the A.C. and this fact has been accepted by him. There is no denial of the fact that the inputs received were duty paid and were used in the manufacture of final product. In the circumstances they should have accepted their contention.
3. Ld. DR drew attention towards the impugned orders and reiterated the department’s view. He stated that unless out of printed words original, duplicate, triplicate etc. the correct one is ticked, it cannot be ascertained whether it was really a duplicate copy meant for transporter and the original invoice produced much later could not be taken into account for the purpose of granting Modvat facility.
4. I have considered the above submissions. I observe that this is apparently a case of minor technical lapse and the appellants explanation is satisfactory. It was always open to the authorities in such cases to verify the facts and satisfy themselves about the genuineness and correctness of the documents or the transaction or purported purpose thay served but it is not appropriate to deny benefit and impose penalty in such circumstances particularly where there was no reason to doubt the bona fides. In this case the duplicate said to have been checked by the Sales Tax Department in transit as well as the original invoice was produced. Therefore it was possible for the authorities to cross-check with the sales tax authorities if necessary or to make enquiries with the transporters or consignor but this they had not done so far and proceeding merely on presumption that the copy was not a duplicate copy. On the other hand the appellant has produced both the copies original as well as duplicate and there was no reason to doubt their version. Since their explanation is satisfactory and Tribunal has repeatedly held that a substantial benefit if otherwise due should not be denied merely on account of minor procedural infractions, I consider that disallowing the Modvat as well as imposition of penalty were uncalled for. I therefore, set aside the impugned orders and accept the appeals.