TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder-in-Appeal No. 42/97, dated 28-2-1997, wherein the Order-in-Original No. 213/95, dated 15-9-1995 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise has been upheld, wherein the Modvat credit of Rs. 35,683.75 had been disallowed on the ground that the invoices on which it was taken were not in conformity with the requirements of Rule 52A(3)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The short point for consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve taken credit is merely of technical nature and therefore, their substantive right for Modvat credit should not be denied only on this ground. In support, they cited the cases of Amal Rasayan Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 133 (Tribunal), Khosla Cast Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 691 and Vijayalakshmi Bottlers (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnical violations and not specific to this aspect prescribed as mandatory by Rule 52A and therefore, stand distinguished on facts. If this mandatory requirement is also brushed aside on the ground of being a technical requirement/lapse, then this will estabilsh precedent whereby the revenue will be in danger as it could not be possible for the Field Officers to verify whether more than one assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s because the duty paying documents on which Modvat credit should be taken is required to be of a specific nature and not one which can lead to ambiguity or alternative interpretations. In this case, as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed in the order impugned, it is impossible to distinguish between which is the original or the duplicate copy and therefore to ensure that more tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is true that mere simple technical lapse should not be allowed to come in the way of the assessee enjoying Modvat credit otherwise will be available, I find that the facts of this case are not in the nature of mere technical lapse because of the reasons discussed above, particularly the word shall in Rule 52A. 6. I, therefore, find that there is no merit in this appeal, which compells me to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
