Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal Delhi Collector Of C. Ex. vs Jupiter Chemicals on 14 October, 1998 Equivalent citations: 2003(162)ELT1162(TRIDEL) ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T) 1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri T.A. Arunachalam, JDR. The respondents vide their letter, dated 27698 desired the disposal on merits. 2. The single issue involved is whether an invoice issued in March, 94 by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mathura, was the document enabling Modvat credit to be taken or not. In his order, the Assistant Commissioner held that such documents were not prescribed either under notification 15/94C.E., or under 16/94C.E., nor were they covered under Rule 57H(1) and the notifications issued thereunder. He, further, observed that the term 'invoice' would relate only to that issued by a registered person under rule 57GG. Against this judgment, the assessees went to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the issuing person was a PSU, that the duty paid character of the inputs was not disputed, that the receipt of the inputs and their utilisation was.......accounted. He observed that merely on technicalities, the claim of the assessees should not have been dismissed, and allowed the appeal. The revenue in the present appeal claimed that invoices became duty paying documents only w.e.f. 1494 with the issue of the Notification No. 15/94 and, therefore, any invoice issued before that date could not called valid document for claiming Modvat. It was claimed that this invoice was not listed under the various documents prescribed under Notification 16/94 also. It was claimed that the Commissioner was wrong in going into the equity when the rules were specific as to the identity of the duty paying documents. 3. I find that the appeal papers contain neither the show cause notice nor the disputed document. The word "invoice" is very often loosely used. It is correct that when used as described under Rule 52A, invoice came into effect only from 1494. However, the Board under various executive instructions, had prescribed as modvatable documents, several documents issued by several persons. These misc. instructions were ultimately collated any Notification No. 16/94, dated 30494. The notification stipulated that the documents must be dated prior to 1494. The notification at SI. No. 7 empowers certificates issued by M/s. I.O.C. as valid documents for taking Modvat. In the present case, the word used is "invoice". In the absence of particular document, it is not easy to determine the factual character but what is clear is that it certifies the payment of duty. The VicePresident sitting singly, in his judgment in the case of Shri Ram Steels v. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 71 (Tribunal) had accepted the delivery drders/challan issued by the Bhilai Steel Plant, another PSU as eligible documents. In holding so, he had relied upon an earlier order of the Tribunal. In my opinion in spite of nomenclature such as "certificate" being enumerated in the notification, any other document serving the same purpose, as long as it is issued by a nominated PSU should suffice. On this ground, I uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal from the Revenue.