2003 (9) TMI 647 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for Modvat credit based on lost duplicate copies of invoices.
2. Acceptance of Modvat credit without duplicate copies.
3. Requirement of informing jurisdictional Superintendent of loss within 24 hours.

Issue 1: Eligibility for Modvat credit based on lost duplicate copies of invoices:
The judgment revolves around the eligibility of the appellant to claim Modvat credit based on the original copies of invoices when the duplicate copies are lost in transit. The Assistant Commissioner did not provide any valid reason for rejecting the appellant's claim supported by a first information report. The Tribunal referred to the decision in CCE v. Avis Electronics, where it was established that credit could be taken on the original copy of the invoice if the duplicate copy was lost in transit. The evidence in the form of a first information report and a bond indemnifying the department against the loss was considered sufficient to support the claim. The Tribunal also highlighted a case where a partner of the supplier affirmed by affidavit the loss of the invoice in transit, further supporting the appellant's claim.

Issue 2: Acceptance of Modvat credit without duplicate copies:
In the appeal related to Order 2259/98, the Commissioner declined to interfere with the Assistant Commissioner's decision, citing the latter as the proper authority. However, the Tribunal found the Assistant Commissioner's reasoning lacking and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal. This decision was based on the established principle that if the duplicate copy of the invoice is lost in transit, the original copy can be used to claim credit, as supported by relevant evidence and documentation.

Issue 3: Requirement of informing jurisdictional Superintendent of loss within 24 hours:
Regarding the appeal in Order 4083/98, the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to allow the credit due to the failure to inform the jurisdictional Superintendent of the loss within 24 hours. However, the Tribunal did not find this ground sufficient to deny the appellant's claim for Modvat credit. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the evidence provided, such as the first information report and the bond indemnifying the department, was satisfactory to support the appellant's eligibility for the credit.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the eligibility criteria for claiming Modvat credit in cases where duplicate copies of invoices are lost in transit. It emphasized the importance of providing appropriate evidence and documentation to support such claims, overriding technicalities like informing authorities within specific time frames.