Birla Vxl Limited Vs. Cce

.....provides certain requirements which were to be complied by the dealer while issuing the invoices. the invoices on the strength of which the credit was denied were prior to 30.3.94. the contention of the appellants is also that with the invoices issued by the dealer they had also produced g.p. 1 issued by the manufacturer of the goods which were also duly endorsed in their favour. the contention of the appellants is that now rule 57-g has been amended by notification no.7/99 which is also applicable to the removal of the goods. the appellants also relied upon the decision of the larger bench of the tribunal in the case of kamakhya steels (p) ltd. v. cce, meerut, 2004 (92) ecc 230 (lb) : 2000 (121) elt 247.4. the contention of the revenue is that the invoice issued by the dealer does not contain full particulars as required under notification no. 15/94. therefore, these cannot be treated a valid duty paying documents.5. i find that in this case the appellants also produced g.p. 1 showing payment of duty issued by the manufacturer which was also duly endorsed in their name. the dealer, in addition to g.p.1, also issued invoices.the larger bench of the tribunal in the case of kamakhya steels p.ltd., after taking into consideration the amendment made by notification no. 7/99 held that the credit shall not be denied on the ground that all the particulars are not mentioned in the document and this amendment is applicable to the pending cases also. in the present case, the g.p.i issued by the manufacturer which was duly endorsed in the name of the appellants showed payment of duty in respect of the inputs received by the appellants. the dealer only issued the invoices in addition to g.p.i. the appellants are entitled for the credit on the strength of endorsed g.p.i prior to 30.3.94. therefore, i find merits in the contention of the appellants. the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.