Judgment:
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 23-2-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi relating to denial to Modvat Rs, 16,875.00 to the appellants, herein, by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, MOD HI, New Delhi on the ground that the invoice from the manufacturer's depot under which the appellants had received their input, is not a valid duty-paying document for the purpose of Rule 57G for taking Modvat credit as it is not in accordance with the terms of Notification No. 21/94. The Commissioner (Appeals) has up-held the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
2. On hearing Sh. P.M. Pawar, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Sh.
Y.R. Kilania, ld. D.R., it is seen that the controversy is set at rest by the Circular No. 204/38/96-CX, dated 26-4-1996 issued by the C.B.E.C. The Board has issued the circular in response to representation from the Trade that invoice issued under Rule 57G against gate passes, are not being recognised as duty-paying documents for availing Modvat credit. It indicates that Notification No. 21 /94 had been issued to rectify certain lacuna in the earlier Notification No. 15/94. The Board, with a view to resolve difficulty arising out of the budgetary changes in 1994-96 relating to the acceptance of invoice as proper document for the purpose of Modvat credit and the issue of Notification No. 15/94 has prescribed in the invoice document issued against gate pass for the period 1-4-1994 to 11-5-1994 by, inter alia, a manufacturer from his depot as valid documents for the purpose of Modvat credit under Rule 57G. This is the clarificatory circular of 26-4-1996. In this case, admittedly, the invoices are within the aforesaid period and have been issued by the manufacturer from his sales depot. Therefore, with the issue of clarification as above by the Board exercising its powers under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules, the disputes so far as this consignment of inputs with the appellants is concerned, got resolved. Moreover, the Assistant Commissioner could not have invoked the provisions of Notification No. 21 /94 for denying the credit on inputs received under invoice issued in April, 1994 by the sales depot of the manufacturer. A perusal of the invoice also indicated that the particulars prescribed under Notification No. 15/94 have also been entered by hand in the computerised invoice, in question. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.