ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. The issue in the appeal relates to grant of Modvat credit in respect of the goods which were received under the cover of an invoice which did not carry the marking “duplicate” for assessment.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellants has pleaded that the suppliers of the goods are Government of India organisation under the Ministry of Defence and they have their own format of invoices, instead of the world ‘duplicate’ they have designated various copies of invoice prepared by them is an under:
Original : By Post
Copy 1 : To Carrier
2 : Range Office
3 : Marketing Division
4 : AD/CFA
5 : Store Section
He has pleaded that the invoice produced have been ticked to show that this was a Carrier’s copy and since it figures at Sl. No. 2 in the list of copies of the invoices prepared the same would only be duplicate copy of the invoice. He has pleaded the appellants should not be made to suffer for the fault of the suppliers for not having appended the word ‘duplicate’ on the invoices when the invoice itself which has been issued as mentioned above would only be a duplicate copy which is given to the carrier of the goods. He has pleaded that under Rule 52A, it is the duplicate copy of the invoice which should accompany the goods and which under Rule 57G is a valid document for taking Modvat credit. He has pleaded that the authorities should have verified with the suppliers of the goods who are the Government Department as to the nature of the invoice which were sent and in case it was confirmed that the invoice sent was a duplicate copy the benefit of Modvat credit should have been allowed. He has prayed for verification with the suppliers as to the nature of the invoice and for condonation of the lapse of not endorsing on the invoice the word ‘duplicate’.
3. Heard the learned JDR for the Department.
4. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. Since the issue falls in a short compass, by granting stay of the recovery of the amount under Section 35(F), with the consent of both sides, we take up the appeal itself for disposal.
5. We observe that Rule 57G requires that the goods should be received under the cover of the duplicate invoice. Therefore the substantial requirement is that the Modvat credit is allowable only if the goods are received under the cover of duplicate invoice. In the present case it has been shown before us that the carrier’s copy is the first copy of the invoice and the original was despatched by the suppliers of the goods by post. This copy prima facie therefore has to be taken to be the duplicate copy. However a verification would be required to be done in this regard. The learned lower authority should have resorted to verification before rejecting the appellant’s claim. We hold that so long as it can be established that the goods were sent under the cover of duplicate invoice issued by the supplier of the goods the benefit of Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57G has to be allowed. In the circumstances we hold that the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit in case of verification with the suppliers of the goods it is found that the invoice under which the goods were received was indeed a duplicate copy of the invoice. We therefore allow the appeal in the above terms.