1 cexa-37.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ... Respondent. R.B.Pardeshi for the appellant. M.H.Patil with M.J.Shah i/b. ANS Law Associates for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 21st September 2010. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused appeal. 2. This appeal has been admitted vide order dated 4th April, 2006 to consider the following question of law: “Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that availment of Modvat Credit by assessee on a copy of original Invoice without satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner is 2 cexa-37.06 minor, procedural and technical lapse and therefore the assessee is not entitled to Modvat Credit? 3. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 19th July, 2005 affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21st June, 2001; wherein the order of the adjudicating authority denying Modvat credit on inputs to the respondent in view of procedural and/or technical lapses was set aside. 4. The view of the Tribunal is based on the provision of rule 57G, which came to be amended in view of addition of sub-rule 13 to the Rules. The mandate of the aforesaid rule is that the credit should not be denied to the assessee on the ground of minor procedural lapses, if the Revenue is otherwise satisfied about the rights of the assessee to claim credit. The view taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with the law holding the field. The Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court presided over by His Lordship D.K.Jain, C.J. (as he then was), in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Ralson India Ltd., 2006 (77) RLT 36 (P & H): 2006 (202) ELT 759 (P & H); has taken a view that availment of credit on the basis of original copy of invoice cannot be denied on the ground that the credit was taken without applying for required permission of competent authority. The learned Division Bench was of the view that literal construction which makes a particular provision manifestly absurd or leads to anomalous results should be avoided. 3 cexa-37.06 5. The view taken by the Tribunal is also in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Board vide C.B.E.& C. Circular No.441/7/99-CX dated 23rd February, 1999. 6. In the above view of the matter, the question of law is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)