Judgment:
1. In all these five appeals the issue is the same. Since the issue is the same, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The issue for determination in these appeals id whether Modvat credit can be taken by the manufacturer on the strength of transporter's copy issued by dealer who could not produce the transporter's copy under which the goods travelled to him.
3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are manufacturing Iron & Steel Products. They have been procuring these goods from SAIL, TISCO, MMTC on its depots. In the instant case the depots from where the appellants received these goods were registered as dealers with the Central Excise Authorities. During the course of the scrutiny of the records of the SAIL Tisco Depot, Excise authorities noted that the SAIL Tisco deposits did not have proper duplicate copy Transporter's of the invoice. They, therefore, alleged that since the dealer did not have regular transporter's copy of the invoice, the documents issued by them to the assessee were not valid documents for purpose of taking Modvat credit. The authorities below confirmed this allegation and confirmed the demands of duty equvilent to Modvat credit taken on the strength of the duplicate copy produced by the appellants and hence the appeals before me.
4. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri K.K. Anand, Ld. Counsel submits that the appellants had taken Modvat credit on transporter's copy of the registered dealer who supplied them the goods. He submits that if anything was not regularly done at the end of the registered dealer, they were not answerable for the omission or the commission of the registered dealer. He submits that the appellants correctly took Modvat credit on the strength of the transporter's copy issued by the registered dealer. He submits that similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs KEC International Ltd. and that the Tribunal in para 4 of its order held as under: "I have considered these submissions. It is not in dispute that the respondents' have availed the MODVAT credit on the duplicate copy of the invoice which is inconfirmity with the provisions of the Rules cited supra. Therefore, there is no warrant to deny the Modvat credit to the respondents for violation of any rule since no violation of any rule has been committed by them. If it is the case of the Deptt. that the SAIL depot as a dealer have committed any irregularity in passing off the Modvat credit to the manufacturers then they should have been made party to the proceedings on any other section as per the provision of the law could have been taken against them. In the present case as a receiver of the invoices there is no violation of any rule committed by the respondents and therefore, the Modvat credit has been rightly allowed to them by the lower appellate authority".
5. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, Ld. DR appearing for the respondent Commissioner submits that the dealer who had issued the transporter's copy to the appellants could not produce transporter's copy themselves.
He submits that since the registered dealer from whom the appellants received the goods could not produce the transporter's copy himself the taking of Modvat credit by the appellants on the documents issued by such registered dealer was irregular. He, therefore, submits that the authorities below had rightly disallowed Modvat credit and confirmed the demand of the credit so taken.
6. I have heard the rival submissions. I note that in the instant case the appellants took credit on the strength of the transporter's copy issued by the registered dealer. I do not find any irregularity in taking credit by the appellants. If some irregularity has happened at the end of the registered dealer then the action should have been taken against the registered dealer and not against the appellants before me.
I also find that the ratio of the judgment cited and relied upon by the Counsel of the appellant squarely covers the present case. In the circumstances all the five appeals are allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.