Per G.R. Sharma :

In the impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held -

"10 (iv) With regard to admissibility of Modvat on `Proforma invoice' I find that supplier of inputs i.e M/s. Escorts Yamaha Ltd. duty paying impugned documents which bore on their top as `INVOICE/PROFORMA INVOICE/STOCK TRANSFER ADVICE/BRANCH TRANSFER ADVICE'/ and they bodly ticked all the said documents as `PROFORMA INVOICES'. This ticking/marking clearly establishes that these documents are not `INVOICES' otherwise the consignee must had ticked on these documents as `INVOICES' because option to tick `INVOICES' was readily available inscripted on the documents. Besides, the mentioning of note on all these documents as - `Note-material being supplied for our own job work No as per P.O.' also establishes that the status of these documents was not that of an `INVOICE' which is issued for sale of the goods under Rule 52A. This note proves that there was no sale of the goods but transfer of Raw Material for undertaking some job work. This motive establishes the status the documents something like internal challan, which does not sound well to treat them as Modvatable Invoices. Besides, Modvat cannot be