Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
V.P. Gulati, T.P. Nambiar, JJ.
Shantala Ductile & Grey Iron Foundry (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum -Respondent
Final Order No. 2153/97 E/Stay/825/97 & Appeal No. E/1637/97, 2153 of 1997, E/1637 of 1997
Decided On : 18-08-1997
B.N. Gururaj,Ravinder Saroop
Per Shri T.P. Nambiar :
Since the issue appears to be covered by our earlier orders, we grant absolute stay and proceed to hear the appeal by the consent of both the sides.
2. The present appeal is filed against the orders passed by the Collector in order No. 222/95 (BM). In this case, in terms of the impugned order, he did not allow the MODVAT Credit on the invoices which were endorsed once.
3. The learned Advocate Shri Gururaj appearing for the appellants contended before us that in similar cases the Tribunal had granted the benefit of MODVAT Credit even on the invoices which were endorsed once. He pointed out that the Tribunal held that in as much as the invoice was a substitute document for the gate pass after 1.4.1994 what would be applicable to be gate pass would be equally applicable to the invoice also. He pointed out that the period involved in this case is the same period involved in the cases which are decided by the Tribunal. In this connection he relied on the following decisions:
i) 1997 (21) RLT 205 (CEGAT) in the case of Tumkur Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE
ii) 1997 (93) ELT 39 (Tribunal) in the case of Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. Vs. CCE
iii) 1997 (93) ELT 111 (Tribunal) in the case of Leela Confectionary Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE
iv) 1996 (88) ELT 98 (Tribunal) in the case of Krishna Cold Rolled Sections Ltd. Vs. CCE.
4. The learned JDR Shri Saroop appearing for the Department reiterated the reasonings in the impugned order and stated that in view of the above said reasonings the benefit would not be given to the appellants. However he stated that in the above cited decisions the Tribunal has taken a view that even though on those endorsed invoices the MODVAT Credit is allowable so long as the dealers invoices also carry all the particulars as set out under Notification 15/94.
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that in the above cited decisions, the Tribunal has allowed the benefit of MODVAT Credit on those endorsed invoices subject to the verification of the Departmental authorities with respect to the particulars which are mentioned in the dealers invoices. In the above circumstances we allow the appeal of the appellants subject to the verification of the Departmental authorities in this behalf. The Departmental authorities should be satisfied that the dealers invoices issued are complete and that the invoice contain all those particulars and accompanied with the goods in question.
