ORDER
K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division-I Ghaziabad vide his Order dated 7-12-1998 disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,88,652/- to the appellants as per the particulars below: –
AMOUNT (Rs) REMARKS
1.2,81,828 Modvat Credit obtained on duplicate copy
of B.E. whereas only triplicate copy is ad-
missible.
2.1,42,820.00 Triplicate copy of B/E endorsed in the name
of party but no highsea sales.
3.1,02,877.00 -do-
4.89,007.00 -do-
5.1,43,174.00 Modvat documents neither original nor at-
tested
6.1,21,086.00 -do-
7.04,860.00 'Transporter copy' written by hand
2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order dated 23-8-1999 has observed that the credit disallowed on the endorsed invoices is correct. Similarly in respect of issue at Sl. No. 3, appellant neither produced the original copy nor attested copy from Income Tax department. Hence the credit is rightly disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner. He has, however, allowed the Modvat credit where the duplicate copy for the invoice did not bear the pre-printed word like duplicate for transporter. The appellant has filed the appeal and stay petition against this Order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. I have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, advocate for the appellant and Shri A.K. Jain, DR for the Revenue. The Ld. Advocate has relied on the following decided cases:
(i) Nicco Corporation Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (22) RLT 607 (CEGAT) -In case when triplicate copy of B/E is lost, the credit is available on the basis of copy attested by Customs provided indemnity bond as prescribed by trade notice is executed and attestation is verified with Customs.
(ii) In the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Maharaja International Ltd. reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 426 (T), a reference application has been allowed where the Modvat credit was allowed on the strength of the photocopy of triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry, placing sole reliance on trade notice issued by Bombay Custom House.
4. I have carefully considered the submission made before me. It is a fact on record that the specified documents on which the appellant availed the Modvat credit were resumed by the Income Tax department and hence attested copies of the modvatable documents were obtained by the assessee through the Income Tax Authority and submitted to the department. I find that the Modvat credit is denied to the appellants even when they have produced the prescribed document i.e. triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry on the grounds that the same is endorsed. This ground to deny the Modvat credit to the appellant does not appear to be valid. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellants nave made out a prima facie case in their favour. I accordingly allow them the waiver of the entire amount confirmed against them.