ORDER
K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. In this case the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jodh-pur Division vide his Order dated 30-3-99/6-4-99 has denied the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,63,493/- to the appellants. The Modvat credit was availed by them during the period from 6-8-97 to 15-8-97 against the four invoices issued by M/s. Mount Synthetics Ltd., Ahmedabad. The credit is denied on the grounds that the invoices did not contain the particulars, viz., Central Excise registration number, ECC number, Range, Division and Collectorate’s postal address of the manufacturer/importer which are necessary for the purpose of verification of their authenticity. It is further observed that verification was caused to be made with the Superintendent of Central Excise Range IX, Ahmedabad in respect of these invoices. The concerned Range Superintendent in his report stated that the verification was not possible since the registered dealer himself had not filed the monthly return for the month of August, 99 with the Central Excise authority. On this ground, it is concluded in the order of the Asstt. Commissioner that the documents presented by the assessee as duty paying documents are not authenticated/genuine and hence the credit taken against the invoices is irregular which is liable to be denied and recovered from them. The original authority has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) on the appellant.
2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur vide his Order dated 24-2-2000 upheld the findings of the original authority dismissing the appeal of the party giving raise to the present appeal.
3. I have heard Shri O.P. Agarwal, Chartered Accountant for the appellant and Shri M.D. Singh, SDR for the Revenue. The ld. Consultant for the appellant submitted that since the factory of the appellants had closed since 6-11-97 and the concerned dealer who had issued the invoices had also wound up his business, wanting particulars in the invoices could not be furnished to the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise. He however, submitted that the triplicate copy of the bill of entry under which the goods were originally imported and against which the impugned invoices were issued, is available and he produced the same. He also contended that in the present case, the payment of duty on the impugned goods is not disputed. Therefore, there is no warrant to deny the Modvat credit.
4. Shri M.D. Singh, S.D.R. for the Revenue however, reiterated the findings of the original as well as the appellate authority and stated that since the prescribed particulars had not been given in the invoices, the same could not be considered as valid documents for the purpose of availing the Modvat credit thereon.
5. The matter is listed today for hearing the Stay Petition filed by the appellants. Since it relates to a small promise, I allow the Stay to the party and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. The Excise Authorities have sought to deny the Modvat credit to the appellants on the grounds that certain prescribed particulars viz., Central Excise registration number, ECC number, Range, Division and Collectorate’s postal address of the Manufacturer/Importer had not been given in the invoices. However, the verification for the invoices was still undertaken through the concerned Range Officer who in his report did not deny that the concerned Dealer was registered with his office. He could not though confirm the duty payment since the concerned dealer had not filed the RT 12 Return for the particular month in which the impugned invoices were issued. In my view this could not be the reason sufficient enough to deny the Modvat credit to the appellants. As rightly contended by the ld. Consultant for the appellants, the duty payment particulars as reflected in the impugned invoices are not in dispute. The particulars wanting in the invoices are the ones which do not have a bearing on the payment of duty in respect of the goods covered and the availment of the Modvat credit thereon. In view of this analysis, therefore, I find no sufficient grounds to deny the Modvat credit to the appellants. The appeal is therefore allowed setting aside the order passed by the lower appellate authority.