Modvat credit on original invoice denied where duplicate invoice was the prescribed document and later amendment was not retrospective.

Capital goods Modvat credit for the relevant period had to be supported by the duplicate copy of the invoice under Rule 57T(3) read with Rule 57G(2); the original invoice was not the prescribed document, so credit on that basis was inadmissible. Rule 57T(3A), which later permitted credit on the original invoice where the duplicate copy was lost in transit, was inserted only by amendment and was not shown to be declaratory or retrospective, so it did not apply to the earlier period. The contrary decision relied on was treated as per incuriam and not followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether capital goods Modvat credit could be availed on the basis of the original invoice for the period March-April 1996, and whether sub-rule (3A) of Rule 57T, inserted later, had retrospective effect.

Analysis: During the relevant period, the prescribed duty-paying document for capital goods credit was the duplicate copy of the invoice under Rule 57T(3) read with Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules. Sub-rule (3A), which enabled credit on the original invoice where the duplicate copy was lost in transit, was inserted only by Notification No. 14/96-C.E. (N.T.) dated 23-7-1996. The later amendment was not shown to be declaratory or retrospective, and the Tribunal declined to treat it as such. The contrary decision relied on by the appellant was treated as per incuriam and not followed.

Conclusion: The credit taken on the original invoice was inadmissible for the relevant period, and the plea of retrospective operation of Rule 57T(3A) was rejected.

---