ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Member (T)
1. The issue in the appeal relates to grant of Modvat credit to the appellants when according to the department, original gate passes was not produced while the appellants contends that the same was submitted to the authorities concerned under acknowledgement in respect of the same and for that reason therefore, it was pleaded that the appellants have necessarily complied with the requirements of Rule 57G of the Modvat Rules. When the matter came up earlier, at the stay petition stage, we have observed as under:
“We observe that the Inspector of the Range concerned has acknowledged the receipt of the documents along with the RT 12 returns as listed in the letter which is dated 5-4-1993 (date corrected from 5-3-1993 to 5-4-1993). The genuineness of this acknowledgement has not been challenged by the department. The only plea urged is that the appellants filed the file, which was acknowledged without verifying the number of Gate Passes and the documents contained therein. We are afraid, prima facie this view cannot be accepted as once the appellants has filed a set of documents in a file and spelt out the documents contained in a particular file, the acknowledgement given prima fade has to be taken to be for all the documents and have to be taken to have been receipted.”
2. The learned Counsel for the appellants pleaded that inasmuch the appellants have done what was required to be done by them in the matter by submitting all the documents required under Rule 57G of the Modvat Rules, and when there is an acknowledgement in regard to the production of the documents the appellants should not be denied the benefit which is due under the law and any failure in the office of the authorities should not be read to the disadvantage of the appellants. He pleaded that it is quite possible that the documents have been misplaced in the office of the Central Excise. He pleaded that the appellants have also got a certified true copy of the gate pass which has been produced before the authorities and he has no objection to the authorities verifying the duty paid nature of the inputs. He further pleaded that he has no objection to the execution of bond that in case at a later point of time the original gate pass is found to have been mis-utilised for a claim second time.
3. The learned DR has pleaded that in the normal course, the range office receives files and it is possible that the Inspector while giving acknowledgement did not go through the individual documents for ascertaining whether all the Gate Passes were there and such scrutiny is done at the time of finalisation of RT 12 return.
4. We observe that in this case, acknowledgement has been given by the Range Inspector in token of having received the documents. The appellants have also produced a certified true copy of the gate pass. The Mod vat credit has been taken during March, 1993. Necessary verification would have been done by the authorities in regard to the documents filed. It is not as if voluminous documents were there and in respect of which verification in the file could not be done. In view of the fact that acknowledgement has been given, necessary verification would have been done in regard to the gate passes being there evidencing duty paid nature of the goods. We, therefore, hold that the appellants’ plea has force. In any case the appellants have also produced certified copy of the gate passes which could be verified by the authorities for its genuineness. Once it is satisfied that the goods have suffered duty there is no reason why Modvat in the circumstances of the case, should not be allowed. In view of the above, we are of the view that the appellants have a good case and their plea has to be allowed subject to verification of payment of duty in respect of the goods. The appeal is therefore, allowed in the above terms.