2003 (2) TMI 409 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of apparent error in Final Order regarding Modvat credit.
2. Dispute over marking "duplicate for transporter" on invoices.
3. Evidence presented by suppliers regarding marking on invoices.
4. Examination of findings by original and lower appellate authorities.
5. Decision on the admissibility of Modvat credit.

Issue 1 - Rectification of Apparent Error:
The Department pointed out an error in the Final Order related to Modvat credit of Rs. 66,595. The mistake was regarding the marking "duplicate for transporter" on invoices from the supplier. The Department claimed that this mistake needed rectification as it was not considered by the Bench while allowing the credit to the assessee.

Issue 2 - Dispute over Marking on Invoices:
The show-cause notice alleged that invoices did not bear the marking "duplicate for transporter." The original authority found that the invoices were marked after the credit was taken, not before. The lower appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to a dispute over the admissibility of the credit based on the marking requirement.

Issue 3 - Evidence Presented by Suppliers:
The counsel for the respondents submitted evidence that the suppliers themselves marked the invoices as "duplicate for transporter." A certificate from the supplier was produced to support this claim, suggesting that the credit should still be admissible based on this evidence.

Issue 4 - Examination of Findings by Authorities:
After examining all evidence, the adjudicating authority found that the invoices did not bear the required marking at the time of availing the credit. The lower appellate authority upheld this finding. The Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee did not consider the marking requirement, leading to the need for rectification based on the apparent error in the Final Order.

Issue 5 - Decision on Admissibility of Modvat Credit:
The Tribunal concluded that the credit of Rs. 66,595 was correctly denied as the invoices did not bear the necessary marking. The amendment in the Final Order rejected the appeal related to the Modvat credit, aligning with the findings of the authorities regarding the marking requirement for availing the credit.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, evidence presented, examination of findings by authorities, and the final decision on the admissibility of Modvat credit, emphasizing the importance of complying with marking requirements on invoices for availing such credits.