IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.E.A. No. 107 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: January 7, 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Jalandhar …Appellant Versus M/s JCT Ltd. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Central Govt. Counsel, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The revenue has preferred the instant appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), against the final order dated 7.2.2007 (P-3), passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), proposing the following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s was right in allowing modvat credit under Rule 57G of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 on invoices which were not the specified documents under the ibid rule being not in the name of respondent? C.E.A. No. 107 of 2008 ii) Whether the tribunal can overrule the statutory provisions of Rule 57G of the Rules? iii) Can Tribunal overlook its Larger bench decision in case of M/s Avis Electronics reported as 2000 (117) ELT 571 (Tri. LB) and Balmer Lawrie Vs. CCE reported as 2000 (116) ELT 364 on the ground of respondents producing certificates of supplier manufacturers on a later date after issue of invoices for supply of goods? Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, we find that the Modvat credit is sought to be denied to the assessee-respondent on the technical ground that the particulars of both persons i.e. consigner and the consignee were not correctly given. However, the aforementioned lack of particulars would not stand in the way of the assessee-respondent in view of the amendment made in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, on that basis the Modvat credit cannot be denied to the assessee- respondent. We find no ground to admit the appeal as no question of law would arise for our determination. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) 2 C.E.A. No. 107 of 2008 January 7, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3