ORDER
K. Sankararaman, Member (T)
1. The appeal by M/s. Avadh Rubber challenges the Order-in-Appeal No. 7-CE/ALLD/93, dated 28-1-1993 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad upholding the finding of the Assistant Collector vide his Order-in-Original No. 20-Demand (183/90) of 1992 dated 29-6-1992 that they were not entitled to avail Modvat Credit of Rs. 39,550/- on 56.500 M.Tonnes of Hot Rolled Coils. It was held that the said material had neither been received under proper duty paying documents nor accounted for in their RG23A Part I Register.
2. Heard Shri M.P. Dev Nath, learned counsel and Shri D.S. Malik, learned Departmental Representative and perused the record.
3. One of the grounds on which the decision has been taken by the Collector (Appeals) for disallowing the credit in question is that the challans issued by Steel Authority of India against which the inputs in question are claimed to have been received by the appellants described the goods as HR Coils while the appellants’ case is that they were accounted for as Flats/Sheets/Bars. He has held that the manner of accountal of the material in the RG23A Part I Register lacked validity. He has noted that the inputs claimed had been received by the appellants in October and November and were not accompanied by any valid duty paying documents. He has then agreed with the reasoning given by the Assistant Collector and concluded that the appellants were not entitled to the Modvat Credit in question.
4. In the present appeal, it has been contended that the Order-in-Appeal is liable to be set aside on the ground of being non-speaking as the Collector (Appeals) had failed to deal with the grounds of appeal taken by them. They have urged that they reiterate the grounds taken in their appeal before the Collector (Appeals) in the present appeal.
5. I agree that the claim for Modvat Credit cannot be rejected only on the ground that the inputs were not accompanied by duty paying documents. The rules require that no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under cover of the prescribed duty paying documents. In the present case, the appellants’ claim is that while the inputs were received in October, November 1989, they took the credit thereon on February, 1990. At the material time, there was no time limit for taking of credit in respect of inputs already received in the factory. The Tribunal decision cited by the appellants, 1991 (56) E.L.T. 853 (Tribunal) – Collector of Central Excise, Cochin v. Premier Cables Co. Ltd. supports to them. The credit cannot be denied unless it is established that the inputs are not covered by the duty paying documents produced by the appellants. In this respect, I find the impugned order has not dealt with the grounds taken in the appeal. The finding of the Assistant Collector is that the SAIL document describes goods as HR Coils 3.10 x 13.0, 2.8 x 13.0, 4.6 x 13.0 but the RG23A entries are MS Flats/Sheets/Bars/Flat 3.15 mm. The Assistant Collector has referred to other discrepancies also which have been countered by the appellants in their appeal. These have not been dealt with in the impugned order to decide the question whether the inputs in question were covered by the SAIL challans produced. I accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo decision on merits and for passing a proper order disposing of the contentions of the appellants after granting them a fresh hearing.