ORDER
K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon vide his Order dated 29-9-1998 has denied the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 78,750/- to the appellants in respect of Invoice No. 189, dated 19-9-1996 issued by M/s. Vinyl Chemical Industries, Sonepat. It is alleged that this invoice was not signed by the issuing authority. The Assistant Commissioner in his Order has observed that the party at the time of personal hearing had submitted the ‘original copy for buyer’ of the said invoice with the plea that the same had since been got signed. It is stated that scrutiny of both the copies reveal that the signatures of the person who authenticated and the person, who had singed the invoice – although the same person but the signatures did not tally with each other. The Assistant Commissioner has therefore, held that the same was not a valid document for taking credit under Rule 57G. Another amount of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 43,680/- in respect of the invoice Nos. 1241 to 1244 all dated 9-9-1996 issued by M/s. Oswal Cable Products have been denied on the ground that the party who issued the invoices were the second stage dealer but the invoice had not been authenticated from the proper officer as required under Rule 57G. In this case the goods were manufactured by M/s. Finolex Industries Ltd. who sold them to M/s. Advance Chemicals and M/s. Advance Chemicals Ltd. sold these goods further to M/s. Oswal Cable Products. M/s. Oswal Cables sold the goods and issued the invoices to M/s. Jay Vinyl, the appellants herein under their invoices Nos. 1241 to 1244 all dated 9-9-1996. The Assistant Commissioner in his order has observed that all the invoices are issued by M/s. Oswal Cable Products who are the second stage dealer. It is observed that M/s. Oswal Cable Products should have got their invoices authenticated by the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer as required under Rule 57G and accordingly the credit of Rs. 1,19,600/- against these invoices is disallowed. The appeal of the party is rejected by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi giving rise to the present appeal. I have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate for the appellants and Shri M.D. Singh, SDR, for the respondents. The matter is listed today for disposing of the stay petition filed by the appellant. Since the matter relates to a small premise, the appellants are granted the stay and the appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the sides. It is observed that the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 78,750/- availed on the strength of the invoice issued by M/s. Sri Vinyl and Chemical Industries as a dealers, has been denied only on the ground that the invoice originally was not signed by the authorised signatory. The party subsequently got the invoice signed from the dealer. However, it is observed by the Assistant Commissioner that the signatures of the person, who authenticated and the persons who had signed do not tally. The Assistant Commissioner in his Order has however admitted that both the documents are signed by the same person. When admittedly the invoice on the strength of which the Modvat credit is availed, is subsequently been signed by the authorised signatory of the dealer who had issued the invoice, there is no warrant to deny the Modvat credit on the grounds that the signatures are not tallying. Accordingly, the order in this regard is set aside and the appeal relating to the credit of Rs. 78,750/- is allowed.
2. The next point relates to availing the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,19,600/- on the strength of the invoices issued by a second stage dealer which are not authenticated by the proper officer of Central Excise as required under Rule 57G. The appellants would like to assert that M/s. Oswal Cable Products who had issued these invoices as dealers are the first stage and not the second stage dealers as held by the Departmental Authorities. It is seen from the record that the impugned goods in respect of which the Modvat credit is availed were manufactured by M/s. Finolex Industries but they sold the goods to M/s. Advance Chemicals who in turn further sold the goods to M/s. Oswal Cable Products. It is observed that when the goods were sold by the manufacturer to a party under a sale invoice, then the stated buyer cannot be the sale agent of the manufacturer – as the appellants would like to contend. Therefore, as per the evidence on record M/s. Advance Chemicals are the first stage dealer and M/s. Oswal Cable Products are second stage dealer. M/s. Oswal Cable Products are second stage dealers should have got their invoices pre-authenticated by the Central Excise proper officer before issuing them as provided under Rule 57G. Therefore, this discrepancy should be got rectified by the appellants by getting such invoices authenticated.
3. In view of the above analysis the appeal relating to the Modvat credit of Rs. 78,750 /- is allowed and the matter relating to the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,19,600/- is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellants shall get the invoices covering this amount authenticated by the proper Central Excise Officer within two months of the receipt of this order. On the appellants complying with this direction, the Assistant Collector should allow this credit after verification.
4. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
