ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. In the above two cases which arise out of a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excises (Appeals), New Delhi, total credit of a sum of Rs. 1,95,454.14 has been denied for 3 reasons :
1. Credit taken on some invoices has been denied on the ground that the invoice has been issued from a different address than that shown on the registration certificate;
2. That in some of the invoices, particulars regarding manufacturers are not given as required in terms of Notification 15/94;
3. That the invoice is issued by an agent who was not registered prior to 31-12-1994 which was also a requirement in terms of Notification 32/94, dated 4-7-1994.
2. I have heard Shri P.S. Bedi, learned Consultant and Shri A.M. Tilak, learned DR.
3. The reason for the invoices being issued from an address different from the address on the Registration Certificate has been satisfactory explained by the appellants viz. that the invoices bear the address of the Head Office while they were issued from the godown from where the goods are stored and which place is registered with the Central Excise authorities. This being a minor lapse it cannot deprive the assessees from their substantive right to avail Modvat credit. A perusal of the invoice also shows that the particulars regarding the manufacturers’ invoice has also been shown and, therefore, credit could not have been denied on this ground. In respect of the requirement of registration, as rightly pointed out by the learned Consultant, the invoice on which credit has been denied is the invoice of M/s. Anil Chemicals dated 14-6-1994 at which point of time, there was no requirement for registration of dealers/agents and which requirement came in only on 4-7-1994 with the issue of Notification 32/94. Therefore, credit cannot be denied on this ground either.
3. In the result, I hold that credit of the amount in question has been rightly taken by the appellants and, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.