Full Judgment
2. Vide notice dated 6-12-1994, Modvat credit taken on the basis of 21 invoices amounting to Rs. 5,30,557/- was sought to be denied on the following ground : "Invoices issued by a person who is not registered with Excise authority as required to be registered under Rule 57G, are not valid documents for the purpose of taking Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944".
3. The Assistant Collector observed that the invoices did not mention the registration number of the dealer and that the pre-printed serial numbers appeared to have been marked afterwards. He ordered reversal of the credit taken. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that subsequently the suppliers were registered on 22-7-1994. In terms of the Board's instructions under Circular No. 76/76/94-CE, dated 8-11-1994 such invoices were acceptable provided the issuing dealer has got himself registered subsequently, and in any case before 31-12-1992. The Commissioner (Appeals) further observed that before 4-7-1994, i.e.
before the issue of Notifications 32/94 and 33/94 registration was not required of such dealers. Therefore, where the invoices were issued prior to the date his objection would not sustain. The fact that the leniency was required to be shown was accepted by the Board also in terms of the cited circular. On these observations he set aside the order impugned before him and restored the Modvat credit. The present appeal arises out of this order.
4. It has been stated in the appeal memorandum that the cited circular provided for acceptance of the invoice of a dealer who was not registered also, provided that the dealer was later registered and further provided that, invoice should contain particulars as per the Notifications 15/94 (N.T.) and 21/94 (N.T.). It is claimed that in the absence of the details being shown in the invoices, the invoices were not eligible documents.
5. I find that in making this ground, the Revenue have exceeded the charges made in the show cause notice. The show cause notice as extracted above alleges that the availability of the invoices was challenged only on the ground that the dealer was not registered. The show cause notice does not go beyond that. Shri Patwari attempted to say that the term "valid documents" must be read to mean that all the required particulars must exist therein. In my opinion his plea is to widen the scope of the simple phrase used in the show cause notice. I further observe that where a particular dealer was not aware of the need for registration, he could not be deemed to be aware of the requirements of notifications prescribing the invoices to be made in a particular manner. The expectation that documents which are later accepted as legal documents should contain such particulars is unrealistic.
6. With these observations I uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal from Revenue.