ORDER
M.P. Bohra, Member (J)
1. Heard Shri D.N. Singh, Ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri T.K. Kar, Ld. SDR for the Revenue.
2. Shri Singh submits that the appellants received the inputs under Excise Invoice No. 17dated 18th June, 1996 from Asha Enterprises, Kolkata. The simple allegation in the show-cause notice is that these invoices are not showing Entry Number of RG 23D Register as required under Rule 57GG of the said Rules. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ranchi has observed that the invoices issued by the dealer should contain the details mentioned in taking the modvat credit. Without such details, it is very difficult to establish the duty paid nature of the goods against which the invoice has been issued and disallowed the modvat credit but set aside the order pertaining to penalty. He submits that the dealer supplied the copy of RG 23D register relating to respective page and that certificate to that effect. The Range Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellants got the duty paid nature of the inputs verified in Annexure D from the Superintendent, Central Excise having jurisdiction over the supplier-dealer in Kolkata. He submits that the certificate is attached with the paper book at page 34. He submits that the benefit of modvat credit under Rule 57G and 57GG of Central Excise Rules, 1944, cannot and should not be denied on such grounds. He relies on the decision of the Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Satyen Dyes, 2000 (67) ECC 643 (LB) : 2001 (47) RLT 669 (CEGAT-LB). He, therefore, submits that the appeal may kindly be allowed.
3. Shri Kar for the Revenue reiterates and supports of t he impugned order.
4. After hearing from both sides, I find that in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Satyen Dyes, 2000 (67) ECC 643 (LB) : 2001 (47) RLT 669 (CEGAT-LB), the Larger-Bench has observed as under:
“However, if on verification the proper officer of the Department is satisfied that the goods (inputs on which modvat credit has been taken by a manufacturer of final product) covered by a given invoice are duty paid and have been received and used by such manufacturer in or in relation to the process of manufacture of final product and that there is no chance of the invoice being misused, it would not be justifiable (as we have observed in para 7) to deny the modvat credit by reason of the serial number of the invoice having been handwritten.”
5. In the present case also, the appellant has submitted a certificate from the Range Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellants got the duty paid nature of the inputs verified in Annexure D from the Superintendent, Central Excise having jurisdiction over the supplier-dealer in Kolkata. The fact has been verified by the Superintendent concerned i.e. the proper officer of the Department and he satisfied himself that the inputs on which the modvat credit had been taken by the manufacturer of the final product covered by a given invoice were duty paid and had been received and used in relation to the process of manufacture of the final product. Under these circumstances, the modvat credit cannot be denied. In view of the above discussions, I allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
Pronounced in the open Court.