2000 (1) TMI 929 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of Modvat credit due to missing words on invoices.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The appellants, engaged in manufacturing LPG cylinders, availed Modvat credit under Central Excise Rules but faced disallowance of Rs. 34,800/- due to missing words on invoices.

2. Disallowed Credit: The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the Modvat credit as the invoices did not clearly state "duplicate for transporter," leading to a show cause notice and subsequent disallowance.

3. Appellate Proceedings: The appellants appealed the Assistant Commissioner's decision, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, prompting the appeal to the Tribunal.

4. Contention: The main issue was the absence of specific words on the invoices, leading to the disallowance of Modvat credit, despite the appellants arguing that the invoices were valid and intended for transporters.

5. Judicial Analysis: The Tribunal examined the invoices and noted that although they did not contain the exact phrase "duplicate for transporter," the purpose and recipient of each copy (original, duplicate, triplicate, quadruplicate) were clearly indicated, with a tick mark against the duplicate meant for transporters.

6. Legal Precedent: Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized substantial compliance with the invoice format requirements, where a tick mark against relevant words sufficed, as seen in "Crazy Candies & Sweets (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 1998 (102) E.L.T. 161 (T)."

7. Decision: Relying on the legal precedent and the clear indication on the invoices, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing them to claim the Modvat credit of the disputed amount, as there was substantial compliance with the law.

8. Conclusion: Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, and allowing the appellants to claim the Modvat credit based on the invoices in question.