Per S.S. Kang :

The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 27.11.96 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. In this case the benefit of modvat credit was denied to the appellant on the ground that endorsed invoices are not valid duty paying documents.

2. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the manufacturer sold the goods through their dealers/depots to the appellant and the appellant submitted the invoice alongwith the bills to the Revenue for the purpose of taking modvat credit. He submits that the issue that endorsed invoice is a valid duty paying document is settled by the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Cold Rolled Sections Vs. CCE Kanpur reported in 1996 (88) ELT 98 and in the case of Tumkur Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 1997 (21) RLT 205 (T) = 1997 (96) ELT 595. Therefore he prays that the appeal be allowed.

3. Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that Rule 224 C-3 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not provide the availment of modvat credit on the strength of endorsed invoice and he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Poddar Udyog Ltd.