Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The department has preferred this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 7-2-2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2. The assessee claims Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 , as amended on 9-2- 1999 (for short the Rules ). The adjudicating authority allowed the said claim holding that the goods were actually received by the assessee and were used in manufacturing. The appellate authority reversed the said view on the ground that the invoice was not issued by the registered dealer as required under the Rules. 3. The Tribunal restored the view of the adjudicating authority by holding as under :- I find in this case, the appellant in addition to the invoices issued by the dealer also received the invoices issued by the manufacturer where the appellants name mentioned as consignee. In addition to this, the appellant also produced certificate from the manufacturer showing payment of duty invoices wise, it is also certified that the goods were supplied to the appellant. Further, I find that now Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules has been amended to the effect that credit shall not be denied if all the particulars are not mentioned in the document and such documents contained details of payment of duty, description, assessable value, name and address of the factory. The Large Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steels after relying upon the Boards circular held that this amendment is applicable to the pending cases also. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The substantial questions of law, sought to be raised on behalf of the department, are as under :- (i Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunals was right in allowing Modvat credit under Rule 57G of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 on invoices which were not the specified documents under the ibid rule being not in the name of the respondents? (ii Whether the learned Tribunal can overrule the statutory provisions of Rule 57G of the Rules? (ii Whether the learned Tribunal can overrule the statutory provisions of Rule 57G of the Rules? (ii Can the learned Tribunal overlook its Larger Bench decision in case of M/s Avis Electronics reported as 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (Tri.-LB) and Balmer Lawrie v. CCE reported as 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 on the ground of the respondents producing certificates of supplier-manufacturers on a later date after issue of invoices for supply of goods? 6. Learned counsel for the assessee points out that the Tribunal rightly restored the benefit of Modvat credit in view of amendment to the Rules, which is as under :- (11) Credit under sub-rule (2) shall not be denied on the grounds that : (i) any of the documents, mentioned in sub-rule (3) does not contain all the particulars required to be contained therein under these rules, if such documents contain details of payment of duty, description of the goods, assessable value, name and address of the factory or warehouse. (ii The declaration filed under sub-rule (1) does not contain all the details required to be contained therein or the manufacturer fails to comply with any other requirements under sub-rule (1). 7. It is also pointed out that the Tribunal found that the assessee had produced a certificate from the manufacturer showing payment of duty invoice-wise and, thus, merely because the dealer, who issued invoice, was not registered, was not enough to deny benefit of Modvat to the assessee. 8. In view of the finding, recorded by the Tribunal that the claim of Modvat credit was genuine, goods having been received and duty having been paid on the inputs, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 9. The appeal is dismissed.