ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. These two appeals arises from common order in appeal dated 29-2-1996 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. There are two appellants who are independently engaged in the manufacture of Tractor Parts falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are availing the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on inpjuts under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Both the appellants are independent entities and have been issued with a separate show cause notice. Separate adjudication order was passed by the Additional Collector. Since the issue was common, the ld. Collector has taken up both the appeals together and has passed the impugned order. The appellants appeals having arisen from common order and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The department carried out regular inspection of R.T. 12 returns for the period from April, 1994 to June, 1994, it was found that they had availed Modvat credit under the cover of trader’s invoice, which did not contain the relevant particulars required under Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 read with Trade Notice No. 26/94-C.E., dated 12-4-1994 and on the cover of invoices/gate passes endorsed after 31-3-1994 which were not valid document for the purpose of taking Modvat credit under Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994. Both the authorities have passed the brief order in which they stated that full particulars of duty paid by the original manufacturer showing full quantity and dates of endorsement are not given in the invoices/gate passes and in the absence of these particulars in the invoices, it cannot be treated as valid documents for availment of Modvat credit.
2. Ld. Advocate submited that as regards the endorsement on documents for the period, the matter is covered in their favour in terms of the ratio rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Mossa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay as reported in 1996 (13) RLT 350. As regards the substantial amount involved in the matter, the Commissioner has merely rejected the appellant’s case on the ground that the trader’s invoice contained only rubber stamp, giving particulars of the duty payments at the original stage of clearance from the factory of the manufacturer but such rubber stamp, cannot be accepted as valid. Arguing on this point, ld. Advocate submitted that the traders had got a rubber stamp made for various details to avoid repeated writings. The details were being filled in terms of the original invoice. She submits that the Steel Authority of the India issued the original invoice, that each and every particulars are verifiable and it tallies. She submits that the department has [no] dispute on the correctness of the entries but has rejected only on the ground that the bill form’s details are filled through rubber stamp entries. She submits that there is no bar for the traders to adopt this procedure in law.
3. Ld. DR reiterates the departmental findings.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I have carried out physical verification of the details which are available on the challan-cum-invoice. In the bill form of the wholsale dealer, on such verification, I notice that the details of rate of duty, S. No., figures and relevant quantity has been in rubber stamp and the particulars have been filled in hand. In order to avoid repeated writing, the trader has designed this rubber stamp and has stamped the same in the particulars column of the bill form, I notice that there is no infirmity in getting the particulars stamped by rubber stamp and to fill the details, so long as these details are correct and verifiable from the original challan-cum-invoice issued by Steel Authority of India. The department has not any dispute with regard to the original challan-cum-invoice issued by Steel Authority of India, the original invoice has been issued in the name of wholesale trader and the particulars found on the challan-cum-invoice. In view of this verification, I am of the view that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Modvat credit. The impungned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for carrying out the formal verification and to grant the benefit, if the details found in bill form clearly talllied with the details on the challan-cum-invoice of the Steel Authority of India. Thus both the appeals are allowed by way of remand to Asstt. Commissioner.