ORDER
G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), made in Order-in-Appeal No. CS/367/M.V./98 dated 5.8.1998 whereunder the appellate Collector denied the modvat credit on capital goods, viz. machinery. She sought to follow the strict rules of Rule 57G. Hence the present appeal by the appellants.
2. The appeal itself is taken up for disposal after waiving pre-deposit with consent of both sides.
3. Learned Counsel Shri Rustom Parakh contends before me that the inputs were imported in December, 1995 as evidenced by bill of entry dated 16.12.1995. The credit was taken on 13.1.1996 in RG 23C Part I. Reconstructed triplicate copy of the bill of entry was received on 1.3.1996 and the credit was taken. He states that at the relevant time the provisions of Rule 57T(3) did not provide for either quadruplicate copy or triplicate copy for eligibility of taking modvat credit. He also invited my attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in Siel Sugar v. CCE .
4. The learned DR adopts the reasoning of the lower authorities.
5. I have considered the submissions. I have also seen the judgment of the Tribunal mentioned above along with another judgment of the Tribunal in Industrial Cables (I) Ltd. . Following the said judgment I am to hold that the approach of the two authorities below are wrong in law. Rule 57T(3) does not provide that the credit would be available only if the credit is taken on triplicate copy of the bill of entry. Here the triplicate copy, it is reported by the learned advocate for the appellant, was lost by the CHA. Hence the credit was taken on the basis of quadruplicate copy. I feel that this is not such a serious offence especially when the rule does not provide for taking credit on the evidence of triplicate copy. Hence appeal is allowed after setting aside the impugned order. I also order consequential relief, if any, permitted by law.
(Dictated in Court).
