2001 (8) TMI 1033 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit due to the depot not being registered.
2. Denial of Modvat credit due to inadequate particulars in the challan issued by the stockyard.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeal was against the denial of Modvat credit because the depot issuing the invoice was not registered and the particulars in the challan did not meet the requirements of Notification No. 15/94. The Excise Authorities observed that the stockyard, which issued the challan for Modvat credit, was not registered, leading to the denial of credit. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing water meter parts, taps, valves, and cocks, argued that the depot was registered before 31-12-94, as admitted later by the Departmental Authorities. The main contention was whether the particulars in the challan fulfilled the Notification No. 15/94 requirements.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the challan contained the necessary particulars, including the rate and amount of duty, challan number, and date of receipt of goods from the manufacturer by the stockyard. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the depot was not registered when the credit was taken and that the particulars required by Notification No. 15/94 were not provided in the invoice. The Tribunal noted that the depot had been registered before 31-12-94, as per Central Board instructions, and that the invoice stamp contained the essential details of the challans, meeting the Notification requirements.

3. The Tribunal found that the first objection regarding depot registration did not hold as the depot had been registered before the specified date. Regarding the second objection of inadequate particulars in the challan, the Tribunal noted that certain Public-sector Undertakings were authorized to issue challans instead of gate passes, which were recognized as duty-paying documents. The invoice from the depot contained the necessary details of the challans, fulfilling the requirements of Notification No. 15/94. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and granted the stay petition, ruling in favor of the appellant.