1997 (3) TMI 277 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Modvat credit for goods received without duplicate invoice
- Interpretation of Notification 23/94 regarding Modvat credit
- Retrospective application of Notification 23/94
- Consideration of Modvat credit in light of Bombay High Court judgment

Analysis:
The appeal involved the denial of Modvat credit due to the loss of the duplicate invoice for goods received. The appellant argued that a certified copy of the lost document should be accepted for Modvat credit, citing a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. The advocate referred to a Circular clarifying that credit would not be allowed on a certified copy of the original gate pass. However, the Circular did not disentitle the claimant from proving duty payment on excisable goods used as inputs.

The advocate further contended that the Board had prescribed the original invoice as an acceptable document for Modvat purposes through Notification 23/94, issued on 20-5-1994, to address the loss of prescribed documents. The appellant sought retrospective application of this notification, considering a decision of the Bombay High Court in a similar context.

The Department's representative acknowledged the denial of Modvat by the lower authority but noted that in cases of lost documents, the Tribunal had allowed Modvat credit on a certified copy of the original gate pass, subject to duty payment verification.

Upon considering both arguments, the judge observed that the appellant received goods under the original invoice due to the loss of the duplicate invoice. The judge referenced Notification 23/94, which covered situations of lost documents, allowing Modvat credit subject to duty payment verification. Citing the decision of the Bombay High Court, the judge concluded that despite the amendment to Rule 57G coming into effect after goods receipt, the appellant's claim for Modvat credit could be considered based on the High Court's decision and the parameters of Notification 23/94.

The judge determined that the appellant's case should be reconsidered in light of the Bombay High Court judgment and the provisions of Notification 23/94. Consequently, the judge set aside the lower authority's order and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration by the original authority.