ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.
2. The appellant has been denied the benefit of Modvat credit for the month of May, 1997 on the ground that the invoices issued by M/s. IISCO, Burnpur in the name of M/s. IISCO, Shalimar endorsed in the appellant’s favour are not valid document. Shri K.K. Banerjee, ld. Advocate explains that IISCO, Burnpur used to send the material through railway to their own stockyard situated at Shalimar and the invoices and the R.Rs were being endorsed by M/s. IISCO, Shalimar in their favour. He submits that this is the practice being adopted by M/s. IISCO and other iron manufacturing unit and is prevalent in India. He submits that subsequently also they have been availing the Modvat credit in the same manner and no objection has been raised by the Revenue. He submits that this fact can be verified by the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over their factory.
3. I find that the invoices were issued by M/s. IISCO to their own stockyard situated at Shalimar from where the goods were sent to the appellants’ factory by endorsing the invoices in their favour. This is an endorsement by the inputs manufacturer himself and if the authorities are satisfied that the inputs have been received by the appellants, Modvat credit should not have been denied to them. I also note the appellants’ submissions that for the subsequent period, the Revenue has allowed them the Modvat credit in identical situation. I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for verification of the appellants’ above submissions and decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the observations made by me in the preceding paragraph. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Stay petition also gets disposed of.