Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for directing the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the Tribunal) to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court :- (i) Whether Honble CEGAT has erred by allowing the Modvat credit taken on the strength of invoices which do not contain the requisite particulars as required under Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 read with Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (NT.), dated 4-7-1994 and 33/94-CE. (N.T.), dated 4-7-94. (ii) Whether Honble CEGAT has erred by allowing the Modvat credit taken on the strength of extra copies of invoice which is not prescribed copy of invoice for availing Modvat credit as required under Rule 52A(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 ? 2. Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 . It has been availing Modvat credit. During 1994, respondent No. 1 availed Modvat credit of Rs. 4,23,237/-. On checking, RT-12 returns furnished by it, the competent authority issued notice dated 30-11-1994 to respondent No. 1 requiring it to show cause as to why Modvat credit availed by it may not be disallowed. After considering the reply filed in response to the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority passed order dated 16-9-1996 and disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,74,542/- availed by respondent No. 1 under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the Rules). The concerned authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 7;500/- under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Rules. The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. However, the Tribunal accepted the second appeal filed by respondent No. 1 and restored the Modvat credit availed by it. The Tribunal held that Modvat credit of Rs. 2,686/- had been availed by respondent No. 1 on the basis of invoices issued by the wholesale dealer/distributor of the manufacturer and the stamp of the manufacturer contained all the details regarding the discharge of the duty liability in respect of the raw material sold to respondent No. 1. In respect of the Modvat credit of Rs. 2,686/- had been availed by respondent No. 1 on the basis of invoices issued by the wholesale dealer/distributor of the manufacturer and the stamp of the manufacturer contained all the details regarding the discharge of the duty liability in respect of the raw material sold to respondent No. 1. In respect of the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,71,856/-which was disallowed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that extra copy of the invoice was not a proper document for claiming Modvat credit, the Tribunal observed as under :- "But neither the receipt of the inputs nor the utilisation of the same in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products by the appellants, had been disputed by the Department: In the certificate issued by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (refer page 19 of the paper book) dated 26-5-1994, it was certified that M/s, Bokaro Steel Plant had duly paid the duty against the invoices issued to the appellants. It was also mentioned that due to some problem in the computer, the original invoices against the consignments were mutilated and on that account the original invoices were not endorsed. But all these facts had been totally ignored by both the authorities below. The certificate was enough to satisfy the adjudicating as well as the appellate authorities that the inputs received by the appellants were duly duty paid and original invoices were not endorsed in their favour due to some problem in the computer of the SAIL. In the face of this certificate, the Modvat credit, in my view, could not be denied to the appellants." 3. Shri M.S. Guglani, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that certificate dated 26-5-1994 issued by the Steel Authority of India Limited could not be relied upon by respondent No. 1 for availing Modvat credit because the original invoices were not endorsed to it. He further argued that the Tribunal committed a serious error by restoring Modvat credit of Rs. 2,686/- ignoring the fact that invoices produced by respondent No. 1 did not indicate whether the raw material had been supplied by the wholesale dealer/distributor of the manufacturer and duty had been paid by the latter. 4. We have thoughtfully considered the arguments of Shri Guglani, but have not felt impressed and in our opinion, no question of law arises for the opinion of this Court. 4. We have thoughtfully considered the arguments of Shri Guglani, but have not felt impressed and in our opinion, no question of law arises for the opinion of this Court. It has not been disputed before us that the certificate was issued by the Steel Authority of India Limited because the original invoices issued in favour of respondent No. 1 were in mutilated condition and the cause for this case some problem in the computer. The certificate clearly showed that M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant had paid the duty against the invoices issued to respondent No. 1. This was completely ignored by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner of Appeals. Thus, the Tribunal did not commit any error by relying upon the certificate issued by the Steel Authority of India Limited more so because it is not the petitioners case that the inputs received from M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant had not been utilised by respondent No. 1 for manufacture of the final product. 5. We also agree with the Tribunal that the manufacturers stamp on the invoices produced by respondent No. 1 for claiming Modvat credit of Rs. 2,686/- was a genuine document which could be relied upon for recording a conclusion that duty had already been paid by the manufacturer. 6. In the premise aforesaid, we hold that neither of the questions framed by the petitioner requires consideration by this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.