IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.2 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.62-64/DGP/2017-18 dated 05.06.2017 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeal-II), Kolkata.)

Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bolpur Commissionerate (Nanoor Chandidas Road, Sian, Bolpur, Dist: Birbhum, West Bengal.)

…Appellant VERSUS M/s. GE Power Ltd.

(Formerly known as M/s. ALSTOM India Ltd.)

…..Respondent (Durgapur, Pin-713206.)

APPEARANCE Shri S.K.Dikshit, Authorized Representative for the Revenue NONE for the Respondent (s)

CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 76726/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 02.07.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 02.07.2025 Per : RAJEEV TANDON :

The Revenue is aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No.62-

64/DGP/2017-18 dated 05.06.2017 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeal-II), Kolkata.

2. When the matter was called up, none were present for the Respondent. This being a Revenue appeal, and an old matter involving duty demands for the period May, 1999 to March, 2000, we felt appropriate to take up the appeal for consideration, with the help of the learned AR.

3. The issue in the present matter revolves on a very narrow compass. The respondents having been proposed denial of Modvat credit on various inputs/capital goods received in the factory premises during the aforesaid period, were issued eight periodic show cause notices for the aforesaid period, pointing out that they had availed Modvat credit on various inputs/capital goods received in the factory premises, and that in some cases, the respondent did not account for the said goods in RG-23A Part-I. The notice further alleged that in some cases credit was taken on the strength of endorsed invoices. It alleged that in some cases the respondent had not properly maintained the RG- 23C Part-I and therefore the appellant had wrongly availed irregular credit violating the provisions of the Rules 57G(1), 57G(3), 57G(7), 57Q(I), 57T(I), 57T(9) read with Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

4. The appellate authority in his detailed and analytical findings have however held the omissions as pointed out aforesaid of a technical nature and had allowed the appellant the benefit of availment of Modvat credit essentially because he had arrived at a finding that the said goods were used in the manufacture of finished goods and therefore the respondent herein were entitled for credit during the relevant period. The crux of the Commissioner(Appeals)’s findings are scanned hereinbelow for sake of records :-

5. The Ld.AR for the Revenue however supports the contentions as raised in the review order primarily holding that the assessee (respondent) had not maintained RG-23C Part-I properly and that the filing of declaration under Rule 57T(1) was mandatory and therefore the respondent were not entitled for availment of the Modvat credit.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. We are not impressed by the arguments raised by the Ld.AR for the Revenue. In view of a plethora of judicial reasoning as taken note of by the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) while delivering the impugned order, we are of the view that as long as receipt of goods at the respondent’s end was not doubted, availment of credit to them was not deniable. We may also point out that CBEC vide Circular No.181/15/96- CX dated 07.03.1996 had clarified that Modvat credit should not be denied merely on the ground that the declaration had been filed subsequent to the receipt of the capital goods. We are of the view that for minor/procedural/clerical infarctions, it would not be appropriate to deny them the credit, as long as receipt of the inputs/capital goods was not disputed by the Department. Moreover it has now been held in a slew of cases that credit on endorsed invoices can be availed of as long as the receipt of the said goods is not doubted.

8. In view of this express finding that the s