Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce, Jaipur vs M/S. Tiruhari (India) P. Limited on 28 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 1999ECR943(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER
P.G.Chacko
1. This application filed by the Revenue is for reference of the following question to High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act:
"Whether the invoices issued by the registered dealer/trader in contravention of the provisions of Rule 52A(3) and 57G read with Rule 57GG are valid documents for availing modvat credit without furnishing the duplicate copy of transporter, which is the prescribed document under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944"?
The appellant claims that the above question has arisen out of Final Order No.A/384-385/99-NB(S) dated 28.05.1999 passed by the Tribunal in appeal Nos.E/1439-1440/98-NB.
2. I have carefully perused the final order as well as the grounds of the present applications. I have also heard ld. JDR Shri K.Panchatcharan for the applicants and ld. Advocates S/Shri G.K.Mahajan and S.C.Karma for the respondents. Ld. JDR submits that, as per the final order, the Tribunal held that Modvat credit on inputs could be validly taken on the strength of copy of registered dealer's invoice marked as "duplicate for transporter" under the provisions of Rule 57GG read with those of Rule 57G and Rule 52A and that, if the dealer has issued such invoice on the basis of original copy (instead of duplicate copy for transporter) of input-manufacturer's invoice, the same would be only a minor defect of technical nature and further that the benefit of Modvat credit is not liable to be denied merely on account of such minor defect. Ld. JDR further draws my attention to the provisions of the above rules and submits that the question of law as framed in these applications has arisen out of the above decision of the Bench. He wants this question to be referred to the High Court.
3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it was not in dispute in the appeal that the dealer's invoice was valid for purposes of availment of Modvat credit and therefore a question of law as framed by the Revenue can hardly arise out of the order of the Bench wherein it was clearly recorded that the dealer's invoice was admittedly a valid document for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit. Counsel, therefore, prays for rejecting the applications.
4. I have carefully examined the above submissions. On a perusal of the text of the final order of the Bench, I find that it was clearly found that the validity of the dealer's invoices in question was not in dispute. It is, further, noted that it was not at all an issue as to whether or not a registered dealer was entitled to issue invoices to his buyers on the basis of original copies of manufacturer's invoices issued under Rule 52A. The question framed by the applicants is whether the invoices issued by the registered dealer in contravention of the provisions of Rules 52A(3) and 57G read with Rule 57GG are valid documents for availment of Modvat credit. In other words, the question framed by the Revenue in whether the invoices issued by registered dealer on the basis of copies other than duplicate copies of manufacturer's invoices issued under Rule 52A are valid documents for availment of Modvat credit. Such a question does not arise out of the final order ibid. These applications are, therefore, rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)