2004 (1) TMI 599 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdictional objection

Summary

Issues: Denial of Modvat credit on cement, Validity of endorsed invoices for Modvat credit, Jurisdictional objections raised by the appellant, Competency of the appeal filed by the department.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 21,780/- to the appellants on cement by the lower appellate authority. The original authority had initially allowed this credit to the assessee, but the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise reviewed the order and the department's appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was allowed, leading to the present appeal by the assessee. The main issue revolves around the validity of endorsed invoices for Modvat purposes during the relevant period. Citing the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur, where it was held that endorsed invoices were not eligible documents for Modvat credit on inputs after 1-4-94, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision on merits.

Another issue raised by the appellant's counsel was regarding jurisdictional objections. The counsel argued that the show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction by the Supdt. of Central Excise, but it was noted that this objection was never raised before, and the appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that challenging the jurisdiction at a late stage was not permissible. Additionally, the competency of the appeal filed by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) was questioned, as the order of review by the Commissioner was beyond the statutory period of one year from the date of adjudication. However, since this objection was also not raised earlier, the appellant was deemed to have acquiesced to the jurisdiction and waived the right to plead time-bar against the department's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the present appeal, stating that the appellant had failed to establish grounds for overturning the lower appellate authority's decision. The judgment highlights the importance of timely raising jurisdictional objections and the consequences of acquiescing to jurisdictional authorities in legal proceedings.