2003 (10) TMI 525 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal allowed, Commissioner order set aside due to lack of evidence on duplicate invoice loss

The appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside, restoring the Asstt. Collector's original decision. The Asstt. Collector was ... Cenvat/Modvat on inputs - Duty paying documents Issues: Compliance with procedural requirements for taking credit based on lost duplicate invoice.Analysis:1. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that due to confusion in April 1994 regarding the acceptability of the invoice, the assessee was justified in taking credit based on the original copy when the duplicate was lost in transit. However, the Commissioner pointed out that the assessee did not follow the procedure specified in the trade notice. The departmental representative relied on the decision of the Larger Bench in CCE v. Avis Electronics - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571.2. The respondent did not appear, and the departmental representative presented the case. The Larger Bench decision emphasized that credit should only be taken on the original copy if the duplicate is lost in transit, subject to the satisfaction of the Asstt. Commissioner about the loss. In this case, the Asstt. Collector was not satisfied as the assessee reported the loss of the original copy eight months after taking credit without any supporting documentation.3. The Asstt. Collector's order clearly indicated dissatisfaction with the lack of evidence regarding the loss of the duplicate invoice. As a result, the procedural requirement set out in the Avis Electronics case was not met. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside, restoring the Asstt. Collector's original decision.