Judge grants Modvat credit for lost invoices, citing appellants' compliance with procedures and distinguishing from precedent.

The judge allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that denied Modvat credit to the appellants for photocopies of lost original and duplicate invoices. The judge found merit in the appellants' actions of lodging a police report, seeking permission, and verifying the duty paid character of the goods. The judge distinguished the case from the Department's cited precedent, emphasizing the appellants' compliance with necessary procedures. Consequently, the appellants were granted Modvat credit, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief available under the law.

---

---

Issues:
Denial of Modvat credit on photocopy and extra copy of invoices.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the impugned order-in-appeal concerning the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 64,925/- with a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellants. The issue revolved around the denial of credit on photocopy and extra copies of invoices issued by Government of India Undertakings, SAIL, and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The Department argued that credit could not be taken on photocopies based on a precedent set by the Tribunal in a previous case. On the other hand, the appellants contended that they rightfully took credit on photocopies as the original and duplicate invoices were lost. They had lodged a police report, sought permission from the competent authority, and the duty paid character of the goods was verified by the Range Officer of the supplier's circle.

Upon reviewing the record, the judge found merit in the appellants' argument. The appellants had taken necessary steps after losing the original and duplicate invoices, including lodging a police report and seeking permission for taking credit on photocopies. The duty paid character and actual receipt of goods were verified by the Range Circle of the supplier, which remained undisputed by the Department. The judge noted that the case fell within the scope of a precedent set by the Tribunal in another case, supporting the appellants' entitlement to Modvat credit. The judge distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the Department, emphasizing that in the cited case, the loss of duplicate invoices was not proven, and no permission was sought from the competent authority, unlike in the present case.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellants was allowed with any consequential relief permissible under the law. The judge delivered the decision in the open court, concluding the case in favor of the appellants based on the circumstances and legal precedents cited during the proceedings.

---