2001 (11) TMI 854 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q
2. Admissibility of Modvat credit without declaration under Rule 57T
3. Disallowance of Modvat credit for capital goods with incomplete invoices
4. Denial of Modvat credit for missing duplicate invoice copy
5. Denial of Modvat credit for unendorsed invoices
6. Denial of Modvat credit due to incorrect unit location on invoice
7. Imposition of penalty on the appellants

Analysis:

1. The appellants were denied Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q. The judgment referred to various decisions clarifying the availability of Modvat credit on capital goods. The matter was remanded for further consideration in light of these decisions.

2. Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,42,314/- was availed without a declaration under Rule 57T. The Tribunal's decision in Kamakhya Steel (P) Ltd. v. CCE was cited, emphasizing that credit cannot be denied solely based on incomplete declarations. The matter was remanded for re-consideration.

3. A sum of Rs. 5,37,782/- was disallowed as Modvat credit for capital goods with incomplete invoices. The judgment cited a decision by the Larger Bench of CEGAT, stating that Modvat credit cannot be granted without proper documentation. The appeal for this amount was rejected.

4. Modvat credit of Rs. 11,818/- was denied due to a missing duplicate invoice copy. The matter was deemed to require re-consideration based on the availability of the missing document.

5. Rs. 2,870/- Modvat credit was denied for invoices not endorsed in favor of the appellants. The judgment upheld this denial, finding no discrepancy in the decision.

6. Modvat credit of Rs. 47,537/- was denied due to a typographical error in the invoice location. Since the appellants had no unit at the incorrect location, the denial was deemed unjustified, and the appeal for this amount was allowed.

7. Considering the technical nature of the infractions and the absence of mala fide intentions, the penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no penalty upheld.