JUDGMENT
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 11.6.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original dated 21.11.96 of the Deputy Commissioner.
2. The appellants were sought to be disallowed modvat credit of Rs. 1,43,963 availed by them in the month of April 95, through a show cause notice dated 3.11.95 issued by the Superintendent on the ground that the invoices issued by the Branch Sales Office of the SAIL did not contain details of the manufacturer such as Invoice No., date, duty paid, etc. in terms of Notification dated 4.7.94. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, by holding that all the requisite details had been supplied by the appellants, through the order-in original dated 21.11.90. But the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed that order by observing that the invoices-cum-challans were completed subsequent to the availment of credit and the authenticity of the photo-copy of the same was a matter of doubt.
3. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. They have prayed for decision on merits. I haves heard the learned JDR and gone through the record.
4. From the perusal of the record, it is quite evident that neither the receipt of the inputs from the Sale Office of the SAIL by the appellants nor the authenticity of the sale documents issued by them, was ever doubted by the Department at any stage. The only objection raised by the Department was that the invoices did not contain complete particulars in terms of Notification dated 4.7.94. But all those particulars were supplied by the appellants when desired by the Department. The adjudicating authority found the modvat documents quite in order and dropped the show cause notice. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not assigned any reasons for doubting the correctness of the documents of the appellants through which they purchased the inputs from the Branch Sales Office of the SAIL.
5. It also appears from the bare perusal of the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not applied his mind to the case. Para 5 of his order reads as under:
“The impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is held to be legally correct”.
6. But the last para 6 of his order reads as under:
“The Departmental appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside” This contradiction which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, is enough to observe that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to apply his mind to the case. He had signed the order in routine without going through the same. Otherwise this contradiction could not appear in the order.
7. The adjudicating authority has recorded the detailed reasons for dropping the show cause notice against the appellants. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has without going through the record and applying his mind, reversed that order. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The order of the adjudicating authority is restored.
8. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and that the order of the adjudicating authority is restored. The appeal of the appellants stands accepted. With consequences relief, permissible as per law.