JUDGMENT
G.A. Brahma Deva
1. The issue relates to Modvat Credit.
2. The department has come an appeal on the ground that the party was to take modvat credit within six months from the date of payment of duty.
3. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that for the purpose of calculating the period of six months for availment of Modvat credit, the date of order of the Assistant Commissioner is relevant date and not the date of issue of the invoice. I find that the issue involved herein has been properly analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 4 of the order which is an under-
Para 4- “Accordingly, in this case also the date of order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that these items are eligible to Modvat Credit is the relevant date for calculating the period of six months and not the date of issue of the invoice on the same ratio. Similarly on the ratio of t he decision of the Tribunal in the case of Modi Cement Limited reported in 1998 (98) ELT 230 (T) the time period of six months has to be also calculated from the date of the order of the Assistant Commissioner and not from the date of issue of the invoices. In the said order Hon’ble Tribunal has held that the date of order is the relevant date for calculating the period of six months for the availment of credit and not the date of issue of the invoice etc. Accordingly, I find that the contention of the appellant that the date of the order of the Assistant Commissioner is relevant for calculating the period of six months on the ratio of the Tribunal decision cited above is correct, which is supported by ratio of the Board’s instructions and the Bangalore Commissioners Trade Notice cited above. Accordingly the order of the Assistant Commissioner disallowing Modvat credit of the ground that the credit was availed after six months from the date of issue of the invoice is not correct proper and legal, more so when it is not disputed that there is substantial compliance of the provisions of the law and there is no other irregularity and infirmity.”
3. Since the issue involved herein has been properly analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals), I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Department against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court)