ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appeals are against common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned in these appeals, disposing of the two appeals before him.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed one of the two appeals filed before him on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The representative of the appellant says that it was likely that condonation of delay was asked for. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) does not say any such thing. The statement of facts of the memorandum of appeal contained in appeal 1575/98 does not say so, only contending that the Commissioner has not taken into account the merits of the issues only addresses arguments on limitation. In other words, no ground is made out for interference with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal.
3. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
4. The issue in the other appeal is entitlement to credit on the basis of two certified copies of the invoice cum challan issued by the Indian Oil Corporation. The credit has been denied on the ground that these two copies were not acceptable in law as duty paying documents.
5. The appellant contends before him that the true copies were received by the manufacturer as the originals were lost, relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Chandigarh v. Ajit Cotton Ginning P.D.S.R. Mills 1997 (90) ELT 332 and the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CCE, Chandigarh v. Baij Nath Ashrafi Lal 2002 (39) ELT 511, in support.
6. The decision of the learned single member of the Tribunal in CCE, Chandigarh v. Ajit Cotton Ginning P.D.S.R. Mills 1997 (90) ELT 332 found that nothing incorrect in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) following the credit taken on the invoice cum challan of India Oil Corporation. I am concerned not with such documents but to their copies. The circumstances under which the originals were not made available to the appellant and copies in fact were issued has not been explained, except to say generally that they were lost. There is no such affidavit by any responsible officer of Indian Oil Corporation or any certificate issued by it explaining the circumstances of the loss. It is not explained to me how and what precautions have been taken to ensure that other such copies were not issued. In the light of this position, it will be extremely unsafe and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to allow credit to be taken.
7. The other decision related to a period subsequent to 1995. I do not think that this ratio would apply to a situation where from 1.4.1994 when the system of gate pass was done away.
8. Both the appeals are dismissed.