1. This appeal arises from order dated 6-3-1997 by which Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted Invoice No. 575, dated 6-7-1994 as the goods had been received from the consignee agent and has held that it cannot be treated as proper documents under Notification No. 32/94-C.E.(N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 issued under Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules.
2. Ld. Advocate submits that the consignee agent had obtained licence on 8-7-1994 and in terms of subsequent Board's circular, the invoice received by such consignee agent up to 31-12-1994, could be accepted.
He brings to my notice the Board's Circular No. 76/76/CX., dated 8-11-1994. He also points out to Delhi Collectorate Trade Notice No.79/94, dated 28-12-1994 and another Delhi Collectorate Trade Notice No.80/94, dated 28-12-1994. By both these Trade Notices, the matter has been clarified that consignee agent would be eligible to issue invoice in terms of said Notification No. 32/94-C.E., subsequent to his registration on or after 4-7-1994 under Rule 57G(2). Ld. Advocate also produced a copy of the registration of the consignee agent dated 28-7-1994. He submits that there is no dispute with regard to the formalities. He also submits that the Tribunal has looked into this issue in detail in the case of Bengal Safety Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I as reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 81 wherein the Tribunal has held that the requirements under Notification 32/94-C.E. are merely procedural requirements and no more. It has been further observed that in view of the settled position of law that a substantive benefit, allowing the Modvat credit cannot be denied on merely procedural deviations, for whatever reason and the transition period having already been prescribed up to 31-12-1994, there is no reason as to why the benefit of such invoices could not be granted. The Tribunal has further observed that the registration of dealers' is not in the control of an assessee. It has been further held that such a view is not conceded then the assessee who acted on an understanding of law existing before the percolation of Notifications 32/94-C.E. and 33/94-C.E. downwards would be left in a lurch for no fault of his.
Ld. Counsel submits that in view of this settled position, the appeal is required to be accepted.
4. On a careful consideration of the matter, I notice that the issue is fully covered by the Trade Notices referred to and the citation placed before me. No other dispute has been raised by the department except that the consignee agent was not registered on the date of issue of invoice. It is seen that the consignee agent has since got himself registered as per the certificate dated 28-7-1994 and therefore, it is within the period laid down by the Board's circular and the Trade Notice. I notice that their impugned order is also not a speaking order and it has been passed in a cursory manner without application of mind.
In that view of the following respectfully Tribunal's judgment, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.