M/S. Rama Enterprises Iron and Steel Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals). in the impugned order, the benefit of modvat credit was denied to the appellants in respect of invoices issued by m/s. indian oil corporation ltd. on the ground that these invoices are not valid duty-paying documents under rule 52 a of the rules.2. ld. counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that this issue is covered by the decision of the tribunal in the case of c.c.e. vs camphar allied products reported in 2000 (122) elt 366 (t).in this case, he submits that the tribunal held the invoices issued by the ioc are valid duty paying documents under rule 52 a of the rules.the appellants also produced photo copies of invoices, in question, which show all the particulars in respect of duty payment on the goods covered under the invoices.3. heard ld. d.r., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.4. in this case, the contention of the revenue is that the invoices issued in respect of duty paid stock or iocl, are not valid duty-paying documents provided under rule 52 a of the rules. this issue is now settled by the tribunal in the case of camphar allied products (supra).in view of the above decision of the tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (dictated in court).

Judgment:
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the benefit of MODVAT Credit was denied to the appellants in respect of invoices issued by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on the ground that these invoices are not valid duty-paying documents under Rule 52 a of the Rules.

2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. vs Camphar Allied Products reported in 2000 (122) ELT 366 (T).

In this case, he submits that the Tribunal held the invoices issued by the IOC are valid duty paying documents under Rule 52 A of the Rules.

The appellants also produced photo copies of invoices, in question, which show all the particulars in respect of duty payment on the goods covered under the invoices.

3. Heard ld. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.

4. In this case, the contention of the revenue is that the invoices issued in respect of duty paid stock or IOCL, are not valid duty-paying documents provided under Rule 52 A of the Rules. This issue is now settled by the Tribunal in the case of Camphar Allied Products (supra).

In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated in Court).