Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce, Delhi-Ii vs M/S. Sidwal Refrigeration Indus. Pvt. ... on 5 January, 2001
ORDER
Lajja Ram
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II, had prayed that the following tow questions be referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana-
"(i) Whether the word "Marked" used in Rule 52A or 57GG of Central Excise Rules would mean "Pre printed" as prescribed by any method or a liberal dictionary meaning could be accepted for this terms."
(ii) Whether under the scheme of Modvat rules the procedural requirements made by the CBEC could be overlooked by the commissioner (Appeals) or CEGAT on the plea that substantive benefit cannot be denied for a procedural lapse."
2. After hearing both the sides, I find the Tribunal had been consistently taking a view that when the invoice-cum-despatch advice had been rubber stamped, in the absence of any other allegation credit was not to be denied solely on this ground that the invoice-cum-despatch advice did not bear printed serial numbers.As the only allegation involved in this case was that the word original on invoice-cum-despatch advice' was rubber stamped not printed, following their earlier decision in the case of Shree Durga Glass Ltd. vs CCE, Bhubaneshwar, 1998 (24) RLT 420 (T), the Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.
3. In view of the above position, I do not consider it to be a fit case for making a reference to the High Court. The reference application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open court)