J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. When this slay application was called out, it appeared that in view of the number of judgments available on this issue, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,90,593 confirmed as duty.
2. The denial of Modvat credit of this amount was on the ground that the invoices stipulating payment of duty were not having printed serial numbers and the invoices were not in the prescribed format. In these situation, two judgments were cited by Smt. Arya, SDR. In the judgment in the case of Derby Textiles Ltd. the Single Member held that the wordings under Rule 57GG(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required that the Sr. number be pre-printed, that the rubber stamping from franking machine could not be cosidered and in this situation, the credit was denied. Similar view was held by another Single Member in the case of M.A. Prestressed Works .
3. Shri Jore representing the appellants relied upon yet another judgment of the Single Member reproduced in where invoice rubber stamped with the words “duplicate for transporter” instead of pre-printed format was held as admissible.
4. In the three cited cases, there is a common issue, and that is whether the requirement is of printed phrase, words or figures or it is sufficient of rubber stamped phrase, words or figures in the invoice. The three Members of the Tribunal having held differently on the same issue. I deem it proper to place the issue before the Hon’ble President of the CEGAT for placing it before the Larger Bench for final settlement.