2002 (9) TMI 735 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Availability of Modvat credit based on invoice without duplicate copy of duty paying documents.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a question regarding the availability of Modvat credit to M/s. Shree Krishna Rolling Mills Ltd. based on invoices issued by a dealer who did not possess the duplicate copy of the invoice under which the inputs were received. The Assistant Commissioner had disallowed the Modvat credit, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision due to the inability to verify the duty paid nature of the goods.

In their defense, the appellant's advocate argued that a previous Tribunal order had allowed a similar appeal, emphasizing that any irregularity by the dealer should result in action against the dealer, not the appellants. They also cited a case precedent to support their claim that Modvat credit should be allowed in such situations.

On the contrary, the Respondent's representative contended that Modvat credit could only be claimed based on specific documents as per Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. They highlighted that the dealer had issued notices without the requisite duplicate copy of the invoice and that the dealer's authorized signatory confirmed the absence of valid documents for claiming Modvat credit.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and observed that Rule 57G mandates that Modvat credit can only be availed if inputs were received under specified documents, including invoices under Rule 52A. Since the dealer did not possess the necessary duty paying documents, they were not authorized to issue valid invoices for Modvat credit. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) in distinguishing a previous case where the dealer had at least produced the original invoice, unlike the current scenario.

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the appellants were not eligible for Modvat credit based on invoices issued by a dealer lacking the required duty paying documents. They emphasized that the dealer's lack of action did not validate the invalid invoices, and the appellants' claim was rejected accordingly.