ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Notice issued to the Maharashtra Insecticides Ltd., the respondent to this appeal by the Commissioner, proposed to disallow Modvat credit that it taken on the ground that it was not taken on the duplicate copies of invoices but on the originals. The basis for this charge was that whilethe duplicate invoice was a carbon of the original in all respects, the ‘tick’ mark against that portion of the invoice showing it to be duplicate of the four copies of which it was indicates to be original was not a carbon copy of the duplicate. Thus, this was not the genuine duplicate copy. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice and denied the credit. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that there was no basis for denial of the credit. Hence this appeal by the department.
2. I have heard the departmental representative, the respondent being absent and unrepresented despite notice.
3. I do not think that merely because the copy marking the duplicate does not have a carbon “tick mark”, it could straight away held not to be such a copy. It is possible that because of a defect in the carbon paper, the particular mark may not have been the duplicate copy of the original. When all the other data tally, the fact that the marking to show a copy to be a duplicate not in carbon but in ink is itself insufficient to hold that it is not duplicate. There is no requirement in the rules that the duplicate and other copies should be carbon copies of the original. I therefore find no ground for interference.
4. Appeal dismissed.