2003 (2) TMI 391 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeals by Revenue regarding duty demands disallowed due to defective Modvat credit documents.

Analysis:
The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the explanation provided by the assessees/respondents and concluded that the defects in the duty paying documents were procedural in nature. The Commissioner highlighted that the goods were received, Modvat procedures were followed, and the duty paying character was not disputed. The omissions were attributed to the dealer's procedural requirements under Rule 57GG, and it was emphasized that such deficiencies should not impact the duty paying character of the goods. The Commissioner noted that the show cause notices were issued under Rule 57-I, which deals with disallowing credit due to errors or omissions by the manufacturer or officer, not the dealer. As the lapses were not proven to be due to errors or omissions by the manufacturer or officer, and the duty paying character was acknowledged, the denial of Modvat credit under Rule 57-I was deemed inappropriate. Consequently, the Commissioner set aside the orders denying credit and allowed the appeals.

Upon hearing arguments from both sides, it was observed that the Revenue's objection regarding invoices issued by a specific company was based on the insertion of the respondent's name in place of another company's name. However, it was noted that the show cause notices did not allege tampering with the invoices but rather highlighted discrepancies in addresses. The Tribunal, in previous cases, consistently ruled that such rectifiable procedural defects should not result in the denial of Modvat credit. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing that procedural defects like address discrepancies do not warrant the rejection of Modvat credit. The appeals by the Revenue were consequently rejected.