ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. As the issue involved in the instant case lie in a narrow compass, the appeal was taken up for hearing after allowing the stay petition unconditionally and the matter was remanded to the originally adjudicating authorities. Decision was pronounced in the open Court. Reasons for the same are being recorded as under.
2. Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,06,974.00 was denied to the appellant on the ground that the same has been availed by them on the basis of 6th copy of the invoice, which cannot be considered to be a valid or legal document in terms of provision of Rule 57G(2). Appearing on behalf of the appellant Shri R.L. Mehta, learned Advocate submits that no doubt originally the Modvat credit was availed by the Appellant on the 6th copy but subsequently they have produced the original copy of the invoice before the Central Excise Authorities for their verification. In this connection, he referred to the show [cause] notice dated 24-4-1995 and drew the attention of the Bench to the following paragraph:
“The assessee, however, vide letter dated 22-3-1995 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise Range-II, Udaipur produced the original (white) copy of the despatch advice for verification but credit under Rule 57G is admissible only on duplicate copy for transporter, which ought to have been of pink colour as has been indicated on right hand top cover of the document.”
3. Referring to the above, learned Advocate submits that the credit has not been allowed on the basis of the original invoice on the grounds that the same is admissible only on duplicate copy for transporter. He further contends that under Rule 57G(2)(A), credit can be availed on the strength of original copy of the invoice, if the duplicate has been lost in transit. The appellant claim that the duplicate has been lost in transit has not been accepted by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the appellant has not followed the procedure as laid down in the Trade Notice No. 39/94-C.E. (36-Misc), dated 2-6-1994. Shri R.L. Mehta placed reliance on the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Bharat Ispat v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 536 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that Rule 57G is procedural in nature and the main object and the purpose of the Rule cannot be defeated on the ground of minor procedural variations. He prayed for allowing the appeal.
4. Countering the arguments Shri A.M. Tilak, learned JDR submits that the appellant had originally claimed the Modvat credit on the basis of the 6th copy of the invoice which cannot be considered to be a valid Modvatable document. The original invoice subsequently produced by the appellant has been rightly rejected by the Assistant Commissioner as no evidence of loss of duplicate copy was produced before the adjudicating authority.
5. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. I find that the original copy produced by the appellant has been rejected on the ground that the appellant have not proved the loss of the duplicate by following the procedure of the Trade Notice. Such a strict view on the part of the Assistant Commissioner is not called for keeping in mind that Modvat Provisions are beneficial provisions in nature. The main object of the procedure envisaged in the said rules and the various Trade Notices and other instructions issued from time to time is to ensure that the Modvat credit is taken in respect of duty paid inputs covered by the scheme subject to fulfilment of subjective conditions and that there is no misuse of the Modvat Provisions. If the Modvat credit is otherwise available to the appellant, the same should not be denied only on the ground that the credit is being claimed on the basis of original in spite of duplicate copies. Reliance placed by the learned representative of the appellant on the case of M/s. Bharat Ispat (supra) is appropriate. However, as the original invoice has been discarded by the Assistant Commissioner without any verification of the same, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the original adjudicating authority with directions to verify authenticity of the original invoice and to allow the Modvat credit, if found in order.
6. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
7. As the appeal has been allowed, the stay petition also gets of.