Commissioner (Appeals) allows appeals on Modvat credit denial due to invoice markings, emphasizes procedural compliance.

The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals in Appeal No. 73/96 and Appeal No. 75/96 filed by M/s. Kamakhiya Steels (P) Ltd. The main issue was the denial of Modvat credit due to invoice markings not being as per requirements. The Commissioner held that procedural lapses should not disallow credit if duty payment and input use were legitimate. The appeals were allowed, impugned orders set aside, and stay applications and appeals disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Modvat credit eligibility based on invoice markings and duplicate copies.

In the judgment delivered by Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of M/s. Kamakhiya Steels (P) Ltd., the appellant filed appeals against the Order-in-Original passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Gwalior. The appellant also filed applications under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the waiver of predeposit of the amount under the impugned orders. During the personal hearing, the advocate representing the appellant argued for the validity of documents for claiming credit and relied on specific case laws.

The main issue in Appeal No. 73/96 was the denial of credit due to the invoice not being marked as 'Duplicate for Transporter.' However, it was argued that the invoices were issued before the requirement for duplication marking and the necessary certificate of duty payment was provided by SAIL, making the documents valid for Modvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the impugned order unsustainable and allowed the appeal.

In Appeal No. 75/96, the appellant took credit on an invoice not marked as 'Duplicate Copy' but as 'For Check Post.' The authenticity of the documents was not in question, and it was argued that the requirement for duplication was to prevent misuse of credit. Since the suppliers and appellants operated in the same jurisdiction, measures could be implemented to prevent misuse. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that procedural lapses should not disallow Modvat credit if duty payment and use of inputs were not in doubt, thus allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned orders.

The Commissioner (Appeals) decided to dispose of both appeals by a single order, finding in favor of the appellant in both cases based on the validity of documents for claiming Modvat credit and the absence of doubt regarding duty payment and input utilization. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, with the stay applications and appeals being disposed of accordingly.

---