ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. Denial of credit by the Assistant Commissioner was reversed by the Commissioner on the following observation:
“The submissions and the impugned order have been considered by me carefully. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding the admissibility of the Modvat credit of Rs. 44,708/- availed by the appellant on the basis of dealer’s invoices which are alleged to be not valid documents as the time of which are alleged to be not valid documents as the time of removal and the other particulars relating to quantity and assessable value were not incorporated. It has also been mentioned in the order that subsequently appellants got these details incorporated but the lower authority failed to accept the same and denied the credit. It is observed that the goods were cleared by M/s. Sun Flag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Bhandara under invoices issued under Rule 52A. The goods were first consigned to the depot, which got registered also with the Central Excise Department for issue of ‘Modvatable Invoices’. However, the dealer issued the modvatable invoice without incorporating the time of removal and quantity/assessable value which have been subsequently incorporated. The dealers invoice is supported by the invoice issued under Rule 52A therefore the duty paying character of the goods is not under dispute. The lapses mentioned for denial of the credit are such which do not have any impact normally on the duty paying character of the goods. Since the dealers invoice is supported with the manufacturers invoice in terms of Rule 52A and that for the lapse of the dealer the manufacturer cannot be penalised by way of denial of the Modvat credit, setting aside the impugned order and I allow the appeal.’
2. In the revenue appeal the following claim is made :-
(i) As per Notification 33/94 (NT), dated 4-7-94, inserting new Rule 57GG, the particulars i.e. date and time of issue of invoice, value, quantity and total duty on the invoice are the statutory provisions, which has not been complied by the respondent. As such in absence of the said particulars, which is mandatory, the invoices in question cannot be considered as a valid documents for allowing Modavt credit.
3. Where a mistake is rectifiable, it should always be allowed to be rectified and in absence of rectification alone the benefit should be denied to the assessee. This correction was allowed to be done in the case by the Commissioner. The appeal memorandum does not challenge this but continues to sing the same song that was sung by the original authority. Accepting the logic of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal from Revenue is dismissed.