2002 (1) TMI 1070 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over availment of Modvat credit based on invoices.
2. Validity of invoices issued by different suppliers.
3. Registration status of suppliers affecting Modvat credit eligibility.
4. Endorsement and subsidiary invoices for Modvat credit availment.

Issue 1: Dispute over availment of Modvat credit based on invoices
The dispute in this case revolves around the Modvat credit availed by the appellants using invoices from various suppliers. The Revenue contended that the Modvat credit claimed during a specific period was not proper as the documents were deemed non-modvatable. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner disallowed a significant amount of credit and imposed a penalty.

Issue 2: Validity of invoices issued by different suppliers
Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) differentiated between the suppliers. For M/s. Konark Steel Industries, the Commissioner considered the invoices proper modvatable documents, leading to the setting aside of the Assistant Commissioner's order. However, for the other two suppliers, the demand was confirmed due to issues with the invoices.

Issue 3: Registration status of suppliers affecting Modvat credit eligibility
The Advocate for the appellants argued that the Modvat credit disallowed based on invoices from M/s. Taurus Industries was unjustified. He cited a Tribunal decision to support the claim that registration as a manufacturer, even without dealer registration, is sufficient for issuing modvatable invoices. The Commissioner's observation regarding the lack of dealer registration was deemed insufficient grounds for denying Modvat credit.

Issue 4: Endorsement and subsidiary invoices for Modvat credit availment
Regarding invoices from M/s. Ellenbarric Industrial Gases Ltd., the appellants argued that even if endorsement was not permissible, subsidiary invoices provided by the supplier contained all necessary particulars for Modvat credit availment. Referring to a Tribunal decision, it was argued that the challan issued by the supplier could serve as proper modvatable documents if it included all required details. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to reexamine this aspect and make a fresh decision accordingly, leading to the disposal of the appeal in the mentioned terms.