ORDER
Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. In all these appeals, the law and facts involved are common and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. These appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 4, 18, 19, 20 and 21, dated 23-1-98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy by which he has set aside five different orders-in-original passed by the original authority by holding that availment of Modvat credit on the basis of invoices issued, wherein there was no sale involved in the transaction, is correct.
2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Henkel SPIC (I) Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the respondents are manufacturers of excisable goods viz. Detergent cake and detergent powder falling under the chapter Headings 3402.90 and 3401.20 of the CETA, 1985. They had availed Modvat credit on inputs viz. Perfume, received from M/s. General Services who had received input viz. Perfumery Compound for the manufacture of perfume from M/s. Industrial Perfumes Ltd., Mumbai for processing and removing the processed perfume to the respondents herein. M/s. General Services, availed Modvat credit on the input viz. perfumery compound which was received by them and subsequently cleared their final product to the respondents on payment of duty by raising invoices as “on A/c of M/s. IPL” (the respondents), and not sold by them.
3. The respondents had also availed Modvat credit on inputs viz. Linear Alkyl Beneze Sulphuric acid (LABSA) received from M/s. Advance Detergents (P) Ltd., Pondicherry who had received the Liner Alkyl Beneze (LAB) (input for LABSA) from the depot of M/s. Tamil Nadu Petroproducts. Pondy, on A/c of the respondents herein for conversion of the LABSA and removing the same to the respondents.
4. It is in the above circumstances that show cause notices were issued to the respondents for availing credit to the tune of Rs. 43,2000/- based on invoice which were marked “Not for sale” and the show cause notices culminated in the various orders-in-original passed by the original authority wherein he had disallowed the credit on the ground that the invoices did not satisfy the explanation to the Notification No. 14/95, dt. 20-4-95. The explanation to this notification prescribes Invoice as a document issued by a Registered person “for sale of goods” and which contains such details as prescribed by the Board under Rule 57GG. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the orders-in-original and allowed the appeals of the respondents.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the orders-in-original, the Revenue has come in appeal on the ground that the Modvat credit availed by the respondents based on documents that were marked as “A/c M/s. IPL, Mumbai” is not permissible in terms of Rule 57GG. It is also contended by the Revenue that since the documents for availing credit were inscribed with the words “Not for Sale”, the respondents are not eligible for Modvat credit as according to the explanation to the notification the invoice has to be issued by a registered person for sale of the goods whereas in this case the invoice was marked as “not for sale”.
6. Shri A. Jayachandran, learned DR reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that it is well settled that a notification has to be interpreted according to the words used therein and since in this case the explanation to the Notification 32/94 clearly used the words “for sale of goods” whereas the documents clearly indicated the words “not for sale” the respondents are ineligible for the Modvat credit and he sought for allowing the Revenue appeals.
7. Shri N. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly in order as he has followed the ratio of the similar orders passed by him and his predecessors and those orders have attained finality having been not appealed against. He therefore, prays for rejection of the Revenue appeals as the issue is no longer res integra as identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Achutha Vulcanising Cement Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 509 (Tribunal).
8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We observe that it is an admitted fact that similar issues had come up for consideration before the Commissioner (Appeals) and he has passed similar orders in favour of the assessee in those cases. Those orders have attained finality having not been challenged by the Revenue. This position is not controverted by the Revenue. Further it is not the case of the Revenue that the invoice issued by the customers of the respondents do not contain the details as are prescribed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the only objection raised by the Revenue is that the invoice has been marked “not for sale”. The duty paid nature of the goods is also not under challenge. We also observe that identical issue has come up before this Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of CCE, Coimbatore v. Achutha Vulcanising Cement Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 509 wherein also Notification No. 14/95 was dealt with and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following the ratio therein, we hold that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue and accordingly the Revenue appeals are dismissed.