ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants in this case were operating under the Modvat scheme prior to 30-3-1993. From 1-4-1993 to 30-6-1993 they operated under Exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. without availing the Modvat option. From 1-7-1993 after availing of full exemption under the said Notification they again went over to the Modvat Scheme. At this stage they claimed credit of the duty paid on the inputs lying in stock as also the inputs contained in the final products lying in stock. The Assistant Collector permitted them the credit on the inputs lying in stock but rejected their request for credit on the inputs contained in the final product lying in stock on the ground that the assessee has not placed before him documentary evidence sustaining the claim. Before the Collector (Appeals) the appellants contended that duty paying documents were submitted to the jurisdictional Range Officer and copies thereof were also available with them. It was contended before the Collector (Appeals) that if those documents were not before him, the Assistant Collector could have asked them to produce copies thereof. The Collector (Appeals) did not accept the plea on the following observation :-
“If the appellants sought to support their arguments then it was for them to do so not for the department officer to ascertain.”
2. She upheld the original order resulting in the present proceedings before us.
3. Shri M.P. Devnath, Ld. Advocate, claimed that this was clearly a case of inadequate communication, the Assistant Collector was expected to examine the documents which the appellants had claimed to have submitted to his office. In the alternative he could have asked them to produce extra copies. This action of the Assistant Collector which was wrongly upheld by the Collector has resulted in denial of justice to the appellants. He, therefore, requested that directions be made to the lower authorities for examination of the documents.
4. Shri Kilania, Ld. JDR has no objection for this proposal.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. It is clear that the appellants have a case which can be accepted only on examination of the documents. It is unfortunate that the Assistant Collector has taken an undoubtedly rigid stand which stand has been wrongly upheld by the Collector (Appeals). I allow this appeal, set aside both the lower orders and direct the Assistant Collector to examine the documents tendered by appellants for de novo proceedings to determine their claim. The appellants are directed to cooperate with the Assistant Collector.
