JUDGMENT
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. On hearing both sides, it appeared that the issue being short, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of predeposit as prayed for.
2. The appellants were dealers registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. They received certain goods under an invoice and took credit on the original copy of the invoice on 21.3.1995. On 22.5.95 they applied for permission to take such credit. They placed on record challans issued by the seller, copies of the transported documents etc. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner disallowed credit vide his order dt. 29.11.1995. This order was reversed by the appellate Commissioner remanding the matter back for re-adjudication specifically directing the Assistant Commissioner to follow the Tribunal judgment in the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (87) ELT 387 (Tribunal)]. The Assistant Commissioner distinguished the facts before him, did not follow the ratio of the judgment and reconfirmed the reversal of credit of Rs.1,37,500/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the orders, the present appeal has been filed.
3. In the cited judgment the Tribunal had observed certain efforts made by the assessee to establish the lots of duplicate invoices. The facts would differ marginally in each case. It was therefore not correct on part of the original authority to distinguish the facts before him from those which led to the cited judgment. On the basis of the representation, there should have been no reason for the Assistant Commissioner to have denied the facility. The ground that there was inordinate delay was also not a valid ground for refusal for condonation as has been brought out by the Tribunal judgment in the case of Sharanpur Engg. Works. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, [1998 (102) ELT 380 (Tribunal)].
4. Before parting with this case, it is necessary to deal with an interesting observation made by the Dy. Commissioner. He said that the appellants being traders did not come under the purview of Rule 57G(2) and therefore the facility was not available to them. The Commissioner in his deliberation has not touched upon this observation.
5. In the modvat scheme, prior to introduction of Rule 57GG, the movement of goods was between two manufacturers Rule 57G therefore speaks of credit to be taken by a manufacturer. After the entry of traders in the modvat arena suitable amendments were required to be made in the subject rule. These amendments were made letter vide Sub-rule (6), introduction under Notification No. 15/98CE (NT) dt. 2.6.98. Vide this provision (although in Sub-rule (1), the traders were not mentioned along with the manufacturers,) the facility to take credit was given to the trader. If it is held that this provision is to be held as effective from 1998 alone all the credit taken by the dealers there before would stand to be denied. Therefore even prior to the amendment it was understood and accepted that the provisions of Rule 57G covered not only the manufacturer but also the traders.
6. On being satisfied that the grounds for seeking condonation were valid and there was no reason for denial thereof, the appeal is allowed with resultant benefit.
(Pronounced in Court)