1. Shortly put, the issue for determination in this appeal is whether Modvat credit can be taken, which is alleged as neither in accordance with Rule 57A nor 57GG.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein took modvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by Ambala Depot of M/s Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). It was alleged that these invoices did not contain the particulars as required under Rule 52A nor the particulars of the manufacturers as required under Rule 57GG. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents herein asking them to explain as to why modvat credit amounting to Rs. 21,768.00 should not be denied to them. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondents herein submitted that all the invoices were issued by M/s. IOC Ltd., Ambala; that M/s IOC, Ambala was registered with the Central Excise Department; that the sale outlet of M/s IOC Ltd. received non-duty paid goods and sell the same after payment of duty from their depot; that the invoices issued by the respondents herein were invoice under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was also contended by the respondents herein before the lower authorities that invoices issued under Rule 52A were the valid documents for taking modvat under Rule 57A and that Modvat credit taken on the strength of such invoices is legally not disallowable. After hearing the submissions of the respondents herein, the Asstt. Collector disallowed them modvat credit whereas in appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the respondents herein the benefit of modvat credit.
3. Shri Nanak Chand, the ld. DR submits that the respondents herein availed modvat credit on the strength of invoices which were neither in accordance with Rule 52A nor Rule 57GG; that according the Rule 57G, no credit can be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of gate pass, AR-1, Bill of Entry or any document as may be prescribed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs; that the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) followed his earlier order which has not been accepted by the department and against which an appeal has been filed.
The ld. DR therefore, submitted that in view of the above submissions, the appeal may be allowed.
4. None appeared for the respondents. As the issue was a simple one, it was decided to proceed with the matter in the absence of the respondents.
5. Heard the submissions of the ld. DR, perused the records and the Rules cited and relied upon by the respondents herein. I find that it has been alleged that the invoices were not in accordance with the Rule 52A or Rule 57GG on the ground that certain particulars regarding the payment of duty by the manufacturer were not incorporated in these invoices. However, from the order-in-original passed by the Asstt.
Commissioner I find that some contentions .raised before him by the respondents herein clarified that the Ambala was the sale depot of M/s.
IOC Ltd.; that the sale depot of the company received non-duty paid goods and sells the goods after payment of duty (emphasis supplied) from their depots. It has also been stated that the respondents were registered with the Central Excise Authorities. Reading Rule 52A and 57GG, I do not see any legal infirmity in the invoices issued by the Ambala sale depot of the respondents herein. I also observe that Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 prescribed the invoice issued by a manufacturer from the factory or his depot. In the instant case, the invoice has been issued by the manufacturer from his depot and therefore, in terms of Notification No. 32/94-C.E., it was the document prescribed by the Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 57G.6. Having regard to the above discussion, I do not see any legal infirmity in the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.