JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. This tax appeal was admitted for consideration of the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Tribunal has erred in taking into account, the endorsed invoices for allowing Modvat credit, contrary to the provisions of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?" The question arises in the following background. The respondent assessee was engaged in the manufacture of NES powder and liquid chemical falling under Chapters 38,28 and 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, on job work basis for M/s. Pyrene-Rai Metal Treatments Ltd. The assessee was holding Central Excise Registration Certificate and was availing modvat credit on duty paid inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The excise department noticed that the assessee had taken modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 7,00,310/- on certain inputs received during the month of January 1995 to May 1995 under different endorsed invoices. In all invoices, consignee was M/s. Pyrene-Rai Metal Treatments Ltd. who had endorsed the invoices in favour of the assessee on the basis of which assessee had taken modvat credit. According to the department, these endorsed invoices could not be used for claiming modvat credit as per rule 57G(2) of the Rules as amended. The department therefore, issued a show cause notice to the assessee calling upon it to show cause why the modvat credit taken to the tune of Rs. 7,00,310/- on the strength of invoices consigned first to M/s. Pyrene-Rai Metal Treatments Ltd. and subsequently endorsed in favour of the assessee, not be held inadmissible and the credit taken not be reversed with interest and why penalty under rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the contravention of rule 57G read with Rule 52A of the said Rules not be imposed. 2. Similar other show cause notices were issued concerning the very allegations but for different periods. Show cause notices were disposed of by common order dated 3.12.1996 by which the adjudicating authority disallowed the modvat credit totalling to Rs. 23,06,261/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Similar other show cause notices were issued concerning the very allegations but for different periods. Show cause notices were disposed of by common order dated 3.12.1996 by which the adjudicating authority disallowed the modvat credit totalling to Rs. 23,06,261/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The order passed by the adjudicating authority was challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by his order dated 23.6.1999 confirmed the order passed by the authorities below and rejected the appeal making the following observations:-- "To avoid the duty paying documents being endorsed number of times leading to dispute over admissibility to modvat credit, the rule has been suitably amended with effect from 01.04.1994 by which invoices issued by the manufacturers of goods and the dealers in the prescribed form/AR-1 or Triplicate copy of Bill of Entry are considered valid duty paying documents. As such endorsement to duty paying documents is eliminated. So the claim of the appellants on the endorsed invoices for availing for credit is not admissible. It is further observed from the record that 217 impugned invoices issued during the period 22.05.1995 to 28.09.1995 (May' 1995 to Sept.' 1995) were endorsed by M/s. Pyrene Rai Metal Treatments Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the appellants. The appellant also admitted in their appeal memorandum as well as at the time of personal hearing that they had taken modvat credit on the endorsed invoices. Therefore, the arguments of the appellants that modvat credit was available on endorsed invoices is not acceptable. The appellants have wrongly taken modvat credit on the endorsed invoices i.e. other than prescribed duty paying documents under Rule 57G(2) of the CE Rules, 1944 and it has been correctly denied. The case law cited by the appellant are also not relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case being different. In view of above, I uphold the order of the Dy. Commissioner and reject the appeal. However, considering the modvat matter, I remit the penalty." 3. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and reversed the decisions of the revenue authority making the following observations:-- "6. In view of above, I uphold the order of the Dy. Commissioner and reject the appeal. However, considering the modvat matter, I remit the penalty." 3. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and reversed the decisions of the revenue authority making the following observations:-- "6. In the case of Crop Health Products Ltd. v. CCI Meerut reported in 1998 (102) ELT 376 (Tribunal), it is held that the appellants are entitled to Modvat credit although invoices were issued in the name of the other company, the goods were manufactured by the appellants on behalf of another company, the appellants received goods and used in manufacture of final product. 7. In the case of Gufic Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Belgaum, 1998 (104) ELT 119 (Tribunal) it is held that endorsed invoice issued in the name of principal, who was getting the goods manufactured on job work basis under Loan Licensee Scheme under Notification No. 27/92-CE. Acceptance document for Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 8. In the case of Spa Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, 2003 (58) RLT 110 (Cegat-Mum), which distinguished the case in Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. CCE Kanpur, 2000 (116) ELT 364 (Tribunal), it was held the same principle as in the case of M/s. Guric Chem Pvt. Ltd. 9. In the case of CCE v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. 1986 (26) ELT 57 (Tribunal), it was observed that in order to claim proforma credit, it is not essential that the manufacturer, who availed proforma credit, should be shown as the consignee in GPI or mere should be a subsidiary gate pass in his name. These prescriptions are under Trade Notices, which have no statutory force. 10. Having followed the aforesaid principles, as laid down by the Tribunal in different cases, which covers the issue in this appeal, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, accordingly set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed." 4. Learned counsel Shri Ravani for the department submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in allowing the appeal of the respondent assessee ignoring the amended requirement of section57G under which only upon production of certain documents, the assessee would be eligible for taking cenvat credit. In the result, the appeal is allowed." 4. Learned counsel Shri Ravani for the department submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in allowing the appeal of the respondent assessee ignoring the amended requirement of section57G under which only upon production of certain documents, the assessee would be eligible for taking cenvat credit. The Tribunal ignored the decision of Larger Bench in case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. CCE 2000 Taxmann.com 1198 (CEGAT - New Delhi). No one appeared for the respondent. 5. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the short controversy that arises in this appeal is whether respondent assessee was entitled to take cenvat credit on the inputs on the basis, of documents endorsed by the consignee. We notice that in exercise of powers under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government under notification dated 30.3.1994 prescribed invoices issued by a manufacturer from his factory or depot or wholesale distributor or dealer of a manufacturer who has bought the excisable goods either from the manufacturer at the factory or from the manufacturer's depot or an importer from his godown subject to certain conditions, as document for the purpose of said Rules. Like-wise, under notification dated 4.7.1994, the Central Government had prescribed invoices issued by a manufacturer from the factory or his depot or dealer of an excisable goods registered with the Central Excise Officer or an importer from his godown or dealer of an imported goods registered with the Central Excise Officer containing the details, as are prescribed under rule 57GG as the documents for the purpose of Rule 57G. In other words, subject to fulfilling the conditions provided in the said notifications, the invoices issued by the said category of persons would qualify a manufacturer to avail cenvat credit on the inputs used. As noted by the CIT (Appeals), rule 57G amended with effect from 1.4.1994 by which invoices issued by the manufacturers of goods and the dealers in the prescribed form are considered valid duty paying documents and thus endorsement of duty paying documents, were eliminated. This is precisely what was considered by the Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. This is precisely what was considered by the Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. (supra) in which it was held that after issuance of notification dated 4.7.1994, invoices can be issued only by a registered dealer and only then modvat credit can be claimed on the strength of such invoices. The requirements of notification dated 30.3.1994 are mandatory in nature and no credit would be available until the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of invoice issued under rule 52A. Thus the endorsement of the invoice is not provided in this rule after such statutory changes. 6. This decision was completely lost sight of by the Tribunal. We find that major changes were made in the procedure prescribed in availing cenvat credit. By virtue of such changed procedure, only upon the invoices being issued under Rule 52A, the cenvat credit, on the strength of such documents could be availed by the manufacturer. The Tribunal thus committed an error. The decision of the Tribunal is reversed. Tax Appeal is allowed. Question is answered in favour of the Revenue. Tax appeal is disposed of.