Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :

The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various grades of Plywood, Block Board etc. falling under Chapter 44 of the Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were, during the period material for the purpose of this appeal, availing the MODVAT Credit of duty on the various inputs received by them after following the due procedure of law.

2. MODVAT Credit of Rs. 58,007.00 availed by the appellants in respect of their input, Phenol, was denied to them on the ground that the same was availed on the basis of an invoice which was not in their name, but was originally issued by the manufacturer of inputs, M/s. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., Ambalamugal, Kerala, in the name of the first consignee, M/s. Arvind Industries, Calcutta who endorsed the same in the name of the appellant company. It has been held by the authorities below that with the introduction of invoice with effect from 1.4.94, MODVAT Credit could be availed by the appellants only on the basis of documents as are prescribed under Notification No. 15/94-CE (NT) dated 30.3.94. As the endorsed invoice is not one of the documents prescribed in the said Notification, MODVAT availed was not proper.

3. Shri B. Saha, learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the procedure for movement of goods on the basis of invoice was recently issued and in view of the recent switch-over from the gate passes to the invoices, nothing was clear either to the assessee(s) or to the Department. As the Gate Passes issued prior to 1.3.94 were being endorsed in favour of third parties and the MODVAT Credit was being allowed on the basis of such endorsed Gate Passes, the same system was followed by them in respect of the invoices also. He further submitted that there being no dispute about the duty-paid character of the inputs and their utilisation in the manufacture of the final products, the denial of MODVAT Credit is neither justified nor warranted.

4. Shri R.K. Roy, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue opposed the arguments of the learned Consultant and submitted that in view of the clear provisions of Notification No. 15/94-CE (NT) issued by the Board in exercise of its statutory powers in terms of Rule 57G, certain documents had been prescribed for taking MODVAT Credit. Any deviation from the prescribed documents would amount to contravention of the said Notification. As the endorsed invoice is not one of the prescribed documents under the said Notification, the MODVAT Credit cannot be made available to the appellants on the basis of such documents.

5. I have considered the pleas from both sides. I find that under the provisions of Notification No. 15/94 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Rule 57G, invoices issued by certain persons have been prescribed as documents for the purposes of Rule 57G. Vide the said Notification, invoices issued by a manufacturer from his factory or depot or a wholesale distributor or a wholesale dealer of a manufacture or a manufacturer from his godown- have been prescribed as the duty paying documents for the purposes of Rule 57G, on the basis of which, the MODVAT Credit can be availed of. When the Notification prescribes the documents, no other document(s) can be read into the same. A reading of the said Notification shows that the endorsed invoices are not one of the prescribed documents. With the introduction of invoices with effect from 1.4.94, dealers have been authorised to issue the invoices in respect of the material received by them. They were required to maintain a requisite record for the receipted material and issued material. It is on the basis of the invoices issued by the dealers, which are duly reflected in the records maintained by them, that MODVAT Credit can be availed of. The appellants' plea that earlier MODVAT Credit was being allowed on the basis of endorsed gate passes, cannot be accepted inasmuch as the gate passes were being issued by the ma