Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. This is a petition by the Department for reference of the following question of law for the opinion of this Court: "Whether the Honble CEGAT has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by non-appreciating the facts that invoices on the basis of which Modvat credit was availed were not having the requisite particulars like assessable value and other duty paid particulars of the manufacturer as required under Notification No. 33/94-C.E., dated 4-7-94, whereas the Tribunal has allowed the credit on the basis of particulars shown on the dealers invoice other than the above." 2. Respondent No. 1 is engaged in the manufacture of PVC rigid pipes and parts thereof falling under Chapter sub-heading 3917 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It has been availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the "Rules"). In the year 1994, respondent No. 1 availed Modvat credit of Rs. 4,02,324/- on the strength of invoices issued by registered dealers. Additional Commissioner (Technical), Central Excise Department, Chandigarh issued show cause notice dated 23-2-1995 to respondent No. 1 proposing to recover the Modvat credit on the premise that the invoices at Sr. Nos. 1 to 8 annexed with the show cause notice did not contain complete particulars as required under Notification No. 33/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994. Respondent No. 1 justified its action of availing the Modvat on the basis of disputed invoices by making the following submissions : "(i) that the invoices from the Sr. No. 1 to 5 and Sr. No. 8 of the Annexure A attached are issued by the M/s. Chandigarh Industrial & Tourism Development Corpn., Ltd., through its depot at Ludhiana which is also registered with the Excise Department vide registration No. 168/R-VII/T/LDH/94 as the Dealer. (ii) that the invoices issued by these dealers contain all the particulars as required under the Notification Nos. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.) and 33/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-94 and also according to the provisions of the Act. The photocopies of the transporter invoices are attached for your kind reference and consideration." 3. Respondent No. 1 also produced photostat copies of the invoices which were duly verified by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide his note dated 4-8-1995. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.) and 33/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-94 and also according to the provisions of the Act. The photocopies of the transporter invoices are attached for your kind reference and consideration." 3. Respondent No. 1 also produced photostat copies of the invoices which were duly verified by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide his note dated 4-8-1995. However, the Additional Commissioner did not accept the explanation of respondent No. 1 and confirmed the proposed recovery by recording the following reasons : "As regard the first allegation, perusal of the invoices submitted by the party along with RT-12 Returns and those submitted subsequently reveal that the invoices mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 of the Annexure A to show cause notice do not contain the assessable value and time of issue of invoices by the manufacturers of such goods. In the absence of assessable value of the goods cleared by the manufacturers these invoices cannot be considered as valid document in terms of Notification No. 33/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-94 for availing Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Rules. Thus Modvat credit of Rs. 3,40,704/- taken on the invoices at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 of said Annexure is not allowable. Regarding the invoices at Sr. Nos. 6 and 7 of said Annexure, it is seen that it is not clear in the invoices as to which unit of M/s. National Organic Chemical Industries has discharged the duty on such goods, in the absence of which the duty paid character of such goods is not verified. Thus "these invoices also cannot be considered as valid documents in terms of Notification No. 33/94-CE. (N.T.) for the purpose of availing Modvat credit. Therefore, Modvat credit of Rs. 61,620/- taken on the invoice at Sr. Nos. 6 and 7 of said Annexure is not allowable to the party. As regard the second allegation, it is seen that the invoice at Sr. No. 6 of said Annexure is clearly marked at Transporters copy at the bottom of the invoice and the party has also submitted a photocopy of Transporters copy of invoice at Sr. No. 7 of said Annexure. Thus Modvat credit in respect of these two invoices at Sr. Nos. 6 and 7 cannot be denied on this account. Regarding invoices at Sr. Nos. No. 7 of said Annexure. Thus Modvat credit in respect of these two invoices at Sr. Nos. 6 and 7 cannot be denied on this account. Regarding invoices at Sr. Nos. 2 to 5 and 8 of said annexure, I observe that the party has produced photocopies of these invoices marked as Transporters copy but the marking is done by the using rubber stamp which is not acceptable. Thus Modvat credit taken on the invoices at Sr. Nos. 2 to 5 and 8 of the said Annexure is also disallowable on this account. Regarding invoice at Sr. No. 1 of said annexure, I hold that the provisions of Rule 52A were made applicable mutatis mutandis to the registered dealers under Rule 57GG by virtue of Boards Circular No. 70/70/94-CX., dated 24-10-94 which was to be of prospective effect only, in my view. As the invoice at Sr. No. 1 was issued before 24-10-94 when there was no such provision, the credit so taken cannot be denied on this account." 4. Appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) with the observation that in the absence of complete name/ address of the manufacturer, the invoices cannot be considered as valid document for availing Modvat credit. However, Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, "the Tribunal") reversed the orders passed by Additional Commissioner (Technical) and Commissioner (Appeals) and held as under: "I have perused the invoice in question namely invoice Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 and I see substance in the contention of the appellant that columns 4 and 5 in the invoices show assessable value after giving trade discount. The duty payment is also clearly shown on these invoices. The non-mention of the time and issue is not fatal to the claim of the assessee for Modvat credit, in view of the fact that all the other necessary particulars are available on the invoice. Hence I hold that Modvat credit of Rs. 3,40,704/- is admissible. I have also perused invoices at Sr. Nos. 6 and 7 from which it is clear that the unit at Thane discharged the duty liability. Therefore credit of Rs. 61,620/~ is also admissible to them." 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the observation contained in the order of the Tribunal that columns Nos. 4 and 5 of the invoices at Sr. Nos. Nos. 6 and 7 from which it is clear that the unit at Thane discharged the duty liability. Therefore credit of Rs. 61,620/~ is also admissible to them." 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the observation contained in the order of the Tribunal that columns Nos. 4 and 5 of the invoices at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 contained particulars of the assessable value of the goods after trade discount and duty payment are correct. He also conceded that the invoices at Sr. Nos. 6 and 7 contained the address of the unit of M/s. National Organic Chemical Industries at Thane. In view of this, we have no hesitation to hold that failure of respondent No. 1 to indicate the particulars of the time and issue of the invoices was inconsequential and the Tribunal did not commit any illegality by restoring the Modvat credit availed by respondent No. 1 and in our opinion, no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises in this case. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed.