ORDER
Shri S.L. Peeran
1. The department has failed these two appeals against two independent assessees. As the issue is common, they are taken up together for disposal as per law.
2. In E/343/99, M/s.Achuthua Vulcanising Cement Pvt. Ltd., had purchased the goods from Elgi Tyres and Treads Ltd., (M/s. ETTL) under Rule 57GG of Central Excise Rules. Assessee took the credit on the basis of invoices issues by the said dealers and they were manufacturing the goods on job work basis. The raw materials were supplied without any sale taking place between assessee and M/s. ETTL who were paying only the labour charges for manufacture of the final product on job work basis. As there was no sales invoice, only invoice document in terms of notification No.14/95 20.4.95 was available. The AC was of the impression that there has to be a sale document for the purpose of claiming modvat credit. The document prescribed under notification No. 14/95 was only an invoice issued by a registered dealer. He noted that registered dealer had issued invoices and that was sufficient for the purpose of taking modvat credit and question of sale or purchase or ownership of the material is not relevant for the purpose of taking modvat credit. In this regard he also relied on Board’s circular dated 9.9.97.
3. In the case of Shanta Raghu Industrial Products, the issue is common on same identical facts as above, and the order is also similarly worded; as the appellant therein was also manufacturing excisable goods on job work basis for M/s. ETTL who were duly registered under rule 57GG of C.E. Rules.
4. The question raised by Revenue in this appeal is that there has to be sale document and mere invoice issued by the dealer is not sufficient for the purpose of taking modvat credit.
5. Heard Ld.DR Shri S. Sudarsan, who refers to various grounds made out by the Revenue in appeal memo as well as the citation of JAI BHAVANI STEELS ENTERPRISES (P) LTD reported in 1996 (83) ELT 537 wherein the Tribunal has held that credit can be taken only on the basis of prescribed document under the said notification.
6. Ld. Counsel Shri T. Ramesh appearing for respondent submits that prescribed document under the notification is an invoice and there is no reference to any sale document. This point has been clarified by Board in their letter No. 267/63/97-CX. Dt. 9.9.97 in the light of Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s order dated 29.5.97 in Civil Writ Petition No. 866/96. He produces a copy of the said Board’s letter on this point. He submits that the Commissioner has taken note of the provisions of law and cited judgment by Revenue in the memo is not correct and does not have applicability.
7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I notp1 ice that job workers had received the goods from a registered dealer under Rule 57GG on invoice which was a prescribed document under the relevant notification. The relevant notification did not prescribe sale of the goods and for issue of any purchase order or sale document. The concept of taking modvat credit is not on this basis but only on the invoice issued by the registered dealer; It has been clarified by the Board by their letter dated 9.9.97 in the light of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of RB JODHA MAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. in civil writ petition No. 866/96 dated 29.5.97.
8. In that view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct and legal and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. Therefore, the revenue appeals are dismissed.
(Pronounced and Dictated in open court)