ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty and penalty, I take up the appeal itself as the issue lies in a narrow compass.
2. Modvat credit has been denied to the appellants on the ground that the same has been availed by them on the basis of endorsed invoices issued by the manufacturer. The endorsement has been made by the Dealer. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld.Consultant appearing for the appellants fairly concedes that the issue has since been decided against them by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2000 (36) RLT 666 (CEGAT-LB). However, he submits that apart from the endorsed copies of the envoices, the Dealers have subsequently issued his invoices also. He submits that though these invoices could not be produced by them before the Assistant Commissioner, the same were produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) who failed to give any finding on the same. Accordingly, he prays that the matter be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for looking into the Dealers’ invoices.
3. Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld.JDR for the Revenue does not object.
4. In view of what has been stated above, I set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner with direction to decide the availability of modvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the Dealers subsequently. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.