2001 (11) TMI 868 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over Modvat credit availed by a registered dealer based on original copy of lost invoice, revocation of permission by Deputy Commissioner, retrospective nature of Rule 57G amendments, applicability of Modvat credit facility to dealers, interpretation of Board's circulars.

Analysis:

1. Dispute over Modvat Credit:
The appellant, a registered dealer, availed Modvat credit based on the original copy of a lost invoice after obtaining permission from the Asst. Commissioner. However, a show cause notice was issued proposing to revoke this permission and disallow the credit. The Deputy Commissioner revoked the permission, deeming the credit availed as unauthorized. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

2. Retrospective Amendments to Rule 57G:
The appellant argued that amendments to Rule 57G through Notification No. 15/98, allowing credit based on original invoices in case of lost duplicates, were retrospective. They relied on a Tribunal decision and a Board's circular to support this claim. The Revenue contended that this facility was only for manufacturers, not dealers.

3. Interpretation of Tribunal Decision and Circulars:
The Tribunal, in a previous case, held that similar amendments were clarificatory and retrospective, ensuring Modvat credit for duty-paid goods. The Tribunal found no merit in Revenue's argument that dealers couldn't avail credit based on original invoices. The Board's circular also supported extending this benefit to dealers in case of lost duplicates.

4. Judgment and Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the amendments to Rule 57G were indeed retrospective, allowing dealers to avail Modvat credit based on original invoices in case of lost duplicates. Given the loss of the duplicate copy and the Asst. Commissioner's initial permission, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellants. The stand taken by the Asst. Commissioner was deemed incorrect based on the retrospective nature of the amendments and the Board's clarifications.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's interpretation of relevant legal provisions and circulars, and the final decision in favor of the appellant based on the retrospective nature of the Rule 57G amendments.