IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Excise Reference No. 14 of 2000 & Excise Reference No. 2 of 2001 Date of decision: 5.09.2008 Ex.Reference No. 14 of 2000 Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh … Petitioner. Versus M/s Karam Chand Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Baddi. … Respondent Ex.Reference No. 2 of 2001 Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh … Petitioner. Versus M/s Parveen Ferro Steels Pvt. Ltd., Paonta Sahib … Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the respondent. None. Per Deepak Gupta, J. The aforesaid reference petitions are being disposed of by a common order since both have been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing modvat credit on the basis of an invoice which was not ‘duplicate for transporter’ copy of the invoice as prescribed under provision of Rule 52A read with Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for taking modvat credit?” 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Both the cases relate to non compliance of the rules while claiming modvat credit. In Excise Reference No. 14 of 2000 the assessee claimed modvat credit of Rs. 75, 133/- on the strength of invoice on which the words “duplicate for transporter” were not marked. The requirement of the rules is that there should be four copies of the invoice. All four copies are required to be printed in separate colours. The original invoice is meant for the buyer, the duplicate for the transporter, the triplicate for the Excise and the quadruplicate for the assessee. These are to be printed in white, pink, yellow and green colour, respectively. Modvat credit is given on the basis of duplicate copy of the invoice in Pink colour, which is meant for the transporter. In the present case, all the invoices were printed in one colour and the words original for buyer, duplicate for transporter, triplicate for Excise and quadruplicate for assessee were printed on every copy. There was no differentiation in colour and all the copies contained common markings. The Assessing Officer held that there was violation of the rules and hence the party was not entitled to modvat credit and he also imposed penalty on the assessee. This order has been set aside by the learned Tribunal in a highly cryptic manner. The only reasons given by the learned Tribunal are as follows:- “On considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that concerned invoices are red colour and further more the manufacturer has authenticated these documents were of duplicate copies, there was no justification to deny the modvat credit. In the view, 3 I have taken, I accept the contention of the party and accordingly, appeal is allowed. In Excise Reference No. 2 of 2001, the facts are similar. The assessee availed modvat credit of Rs.23,455/- on the basis of invoice which did not appear to be the transporter’s copy. The case of the assessee was that there was misprinting in invoice book and during the binding, the copy meant to be marked as duplicate for transporter was printed as quadruplicate for assessee. The Assessing Officer held that the invoice is marked quadruplicate for assessee and the said words had been scored off and the words duplicate for transporter had been printed with the help of a rubber stamp. The Assessing Officer, therefore, directed the recovery of the credit claim and also imposed penalty. In this case, the Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal and has held that the veracity of the invoice could have been checked by the department. The Appellate Authority again by a very cryptic and non-speaking order rejected the appeal of the department. The law is well settled that when an assessee wants to take benefit of any rebate he must satisfy all the conditions which are necessary for availing the rebate. Reference in this behalf may be made to Mihir Textiles Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.), wherein the apex Court held as follows:- “12. xxx. Xxx.. xxx… 4 This is not a case where a certain provision is mandatory or directory. Here the question is whether concessional relief of duty which is made dependent on the satisfaction of certain conditions can be granted without compliance of such conditions. No matter even if the conditions are only directory.” A learned Division Bench of this Court in Ex.Reference No. 16 of 2000, Commissioner, Central Excise Chandigarh vs. M/s Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd., Barotiwala, decided on 4.7.2008, held as follows:- “Undoubtedly the requirement of the language is clear and unambiguous. The provisions of Statute and the Notification, keeping in view the object and the purpose, had to be fully complied with in letter and spirit. The requirements are mandatory and are not procedural as is sought to be argued on behalf of the assessee. The Legislative intent, the object and purpose is to check the defrauding of the Government by the assesses resorting to similar double credits against single consignment by falsification of documents by various methods. The legislature only requires four particulars to be pre-printed, which in any event are within the prior knowledge of and pertains to the person issuing the invoice. Therefore, there is no justification for not complying with the same. The requirement of the law is that invoices were to be pre-printed and not hand written. The Legislative intent is evident from every word used in the Statute. The same has to be complied with. If the view taken by the Tribunal is accepted it would render the Statute redundant. Therefore, on the principle of Golden Rule of Interpretation, the view taken by the Tribunal is unacceptable.” The rule specifically provides that the invoices should be in different colours and each invoice should be marked separately for the buyer, transporter, Excise and assessee. The purpose behind 5 this is to ensure that for the same transaction the assessee does not claim credit more than once. Therefore, the Assessing Officer in both the cases was absolutely right in holding that if the assessee does not comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules, he cannot take the benefit of the same. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The order of the learned Tribunal are set aside and the orders of the Assessing Officer are restored. Both the reference petitions are disposed of accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 5th September, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™