9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (10) TMI 546 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Permissibility of taking credit on invoices not marked "duplicate" 2. Compliance with rules for taking Modvat credit Issue 1: Permissibility of taking credit on invoices not marked "duplicate" The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai analyzed the appeal where the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the respondent to take credit on invoices not marked "duplicate." The Commissioner found that the invoices were intended for "store copy to avail Modvat purpose." However, the Commissioner contended that there was no provision in the rule for having a copy of the invoice marked "store copy" to take Modvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the status of the document when credit was taken should be considered, irrespective of any subsequent amendments. Referring to a previous decision in CCE v. Evis Electronics, the Tribunal highlighted the necessity of complying with the law's requirements in substance. Since it was not demonstrated that the rules were adhered to, the Tribunal concluded that allowing the credit was not appropriate. Issue 2: Compliance with rules for taking Modvat credit The representative of the respondent failed to clarify the number of copies issued by the dealer and argued that post taking credit, the invoices were stamped "duplicate copy for transporter," justifying the credit. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the document's status at the time of credit was crucial. The Tribunal reiterated that credit could not be taken based on duplicates unless specified in the rules. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and restoring the Additional Commissioner's order concerning the specific invoice in question. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rules and requirements for taking Modvat credit, specifically regarding the marking of invoices as "duplicate" and compliance with the law's provisions.
|
