K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)
1. This appeal came up for reporting compliance of the Stay Order. Shri R.K. Singh, Ld. Advocate stated that the disputed duty amount alongwith penalty has been adjusted by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Bareilly against their refund claim. He, therefore, pleaded that the appeal may be disposed of as they are not contesting the recovery of the duty amount, but the penalty amount may be waived.
2. Shri S. Bhatnagar, Ld. JDR pleaded that the appellants had taken Modvat credit on original copy of invoice and they have neither reported the loss for duplicate copy to the Asstt. Commissioner nor given any reason therefor. Therefore, credit was disallowed to them by following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (69) ECC 272 (LB) : 2000 (117) ELT 571. Since the appellants had taken Modvat credit on invalid documents, therefore, the penalty was correctly imposed on them.
3. Considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. is fully applicable to the present case and the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on this decision, has correctly rejected their appeal. I do not find any reason to reduce the penalty amount as the penalty imposed is reasonable for taking credit on a document, which is not prescribed. Therefore, the appeal is rejected.