9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (2) TMI 855 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Disallowance of Modvat credit on certain inputs, deficiency in invoices, imposition of penalty
Analysis: 1. Disallowed Modvat Credit: The lower authorities disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 26,780/- taken by the appellants on certain inputs due to deficiencies in the invoices. The dealer's invoice lacked necessary particulars, and the manufacturer's invoice had clerical corrections not duly authenticated. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, later reduced to Rs. 10,000/- by the lower appellate authority. 2. Submission of Additional Documents: The appellants submitted documents marked as Annexures 7, 8, and 9 to rectify the deficiencies in the invoices. Annexure 8, an extract from the RG 23D Register, addressed the deficiency in the dealer's invoice, while Annexure 9, a certificate from the input-manufacturer, authenticated the corrections in the manufacturer's invoice. The appellants argued that these documents were not considered by the lower authorities, leading to an unjust disallowance of the Modvat credit. 3. Judicial Review: The presiding judge carefully reviewed the submissions and documents. It was observed that the deficiency in the dealer's invoice was rectified by the production of Annexure 8, which was not duly considered by the lower authorities. The judge found that the Modvat credit of Rs. 13,673/- was admissible to the appellants. Similarly, the defect in the manufacturer's invoice was rectified by the submission of Annexure 9, which authenticated the corrections. The judge concluded that the Modvat credit of Rs. 13,107/- was valid, and there was no basis for imposing a penalty. 4. Final Decision: Considering the rectification of deficiencies in the invoices through the submitted documents, the judge set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. The judge emphasized that the lower authorities had failed to properly assess the documents provided by the appellants, leading to an incorrect disallowance of Modvat credit and an unwarranted penalty.
|
