ORDER
P.G. Chacko
1. In this application, the department has claimed that the following question of law has arisen from Final Order No. A/668/98-NB dated 17.6.98 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.
2. I have perused the above final order and examined the grounds of the present application. I have also heard Id JDR, Sh. A.K Jain for the applicants. There is no representation for the respondents inspite of notice.
3. The above final order was an order passed by this Tribunal rejecting the appeal of the Revenue. The issue in that appeal was whether certain modvat credit taken by the respondents on the strength of invoices which lacked certain particulars was liable to be disallowed on the ground of lack of kparticulars in the invoices in terms of Notification No. 15/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.94 and the Board’s Circular No. 76/76/94-CE(NT) dated 8.4.94. The issue was answered in the negative by the Bench after considering the submissions of both sides. If the Revenue is still aggrieved by such a decision, the appropriate remedy is to go in appeal against the above final order and not to approach this Tribunal again by way of this application. Today, Id. JDR has submitted that as per the decision of the Tribunal’s Larger Bench in the case of Avis Electronics, the assessee is required to fulfil the necessary conditions for getting benefits under the Central Excise Act and the rules thereunder. I have no quarrel with this proposition. The decision rendered by the Larger Bench subsequent to the above final order of the Tribunal cannot be a basis for the applicant in arguing that a question of law as framed in this application has arisen from the said final order as on the date on which that order was passed. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept any reliance on the Larger Bench decision in support of the present application. The application is, therefore, rejected.