ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 31-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. When the case was called non appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.
3. In this case the learned Commissioner in the impugned order allowed the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of invoices issued by the unregistered dealers.
4. Shri T.A. Arunachalam, learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Notification 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 provides for requirement of registration by a dealer. He submits that in the present case the invoice was issued by the Depot of Indian Oil Corporation which is not registered as dealer. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jayana Time Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 245 (Tribunal). He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. Heard learned JDR and perused the appeal papers.
5. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bengal Safety Industries v. C.C.E., Calcutta-I, reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 81 (Tribunal).
6. In the case of Bengal Safety Industries (supra) held that invoices issued by the dealer who did not get himself registered under Rule 57GG during the transactional period upto 31-12-1994 are valid duty paying document.
7. The Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 was issued prescribing the document under Rule 57GG for the purpose of taking Modvat credit. This notification prescribed invoices issued by the dealers of excisable goods registered with the Central Excise Office. Thereafter, Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 was issued inserting Rule 57GG which prescribes that every person, who issues invoice or invoices under Rule 57G got himself registered under Rule 174 which was also directed that such a person shall maintain a stock account in the form RG 23D. In the present case the Modvat credit was taken on 7-2-1996 and 6-3-1996 on the basis of invoices issued by unregistered dealers so it cannot be said that the invoices were issued during the transactional period as held in the case of Bengal Safety Industries (supra). In these circumstances, the ratio of Bengal Safety Industries is not applicable in the present case. The respondents had not produced any record pertaining to RG 23D showing that the goods are duty paid. In these circumstances the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of these invoices is not sustainable. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.