2003 (8) TMI 456 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Validity of disallowance of Modvat credit based on loss of duplicate copy of invoice.

Analysis:
The appeal questioned the validity of an order disallowing Modvat credit of a specific amount based on the loss of the duplicate copy of the invoice. The appellants claimed the credit in April 1994 but failed to prove the loss of the duplicate copy for transport, leading to the disallowance of the credit. The learned counsel argued that the authorities erred in not accepting the application seeking permission to take credit on the original invoice after the loss of the duplicate copy. Reference was made to legal precedents where credit on the original invoice was allowed after the loss of the duplicate copy.

The learned SDR contended that since no proof of the loss was provided, the disallowance was justified. The judge noted that Modvat credit on the original invoice is only permissible if the loss of the duplicate copy is proven. Despite the appellants' application alleging the loss, they failed to substantiate it with evidence. The judge emphasized the necessity of satisfying the conditions laid down in Rule 57G to claim credit on the original invoice. Without proving the loss of the duplicate copy, the credit cannot be availed as a matter of right.

The judge highlighted that the law mandates proving the loss of the duplicate copy before claiming credit on the original invoice. The appellants were rightly disallowed the credit due to their failure to provide evidence of the loss. Legal precedents were cited to emphasize that the availment of Modvat credit must adhere to the rules, and the credit on the original invoice can only be claimed after proving the loss of the duplicate copy. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the credit was deemed valid, and the appeal was dismissed.