ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat Credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that the credit was taken on the strength of original copy of invoice.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The contention of the appellants is that vide Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 19-1-95, “duplicate for transporter” copies of invoices were prescribed as valid documents for availing the benefit of credit. The invoices, in question, were issued by the dealers prior to issuance of Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 19-1-95. The contention of the appellants is that as the invoices were issued prior to Notification No. 2/95, the restriction imposed by the notification cannot be applied on the appellants.
4. The contention of the Revenue is that when the document is prescribed for availing the benefit of Modvat Credit, the credit cannot be taken on any other non-prescribed document.
5. In this case, the credit was taken by the appellants on 21-3-95 and 1-2-95 on the strength of original copy of invoice. Revenue issued the Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 19-1-95, describing duplicate copy of invoice as approved duty-paying document for availing the credit on the inputs.
6. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 214 while dealing with the amendment to Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules where the time limit of six months was prescribed for availing the credit, held that after the amendment, the credit can only be taken within six months from the date of issuance of duty-paying document. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the manufacturers on the ground that when the documents, which are issued prior to the amendment restriction imposed by amending Rule 57G of the Rules, cannot be imposed. This view is upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 5.
7. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a manufacturer cannot take the credit on the strength of original copy of invoice after issuance of Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 19-1-95. Therefore, the impugned order, denying the credit is upheld. However, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.