2004 (12) TMI 608 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Availability of Modvat credit on original invoice when duplicate is lost.

Analysis:
The main issue in this appeal was whether Modvat credit could be availed by the appellants on the original copy of the invoice when the duplicate was lost during transportation. The advocate for the appellants argued that the loss of the duplicate invoice was immediately reported through an F.I.R. lodged in Delhi and informed to the Superintendent. The appellants also applied for credit within the stipulated time frame as per Rule 57G(5). The advocate emphasized that there was no dispute regarding the receipt and utilization of the goods for manufacturing finished products. He cited relevant case laws to support the appellants' claim for credit.

The Revenue's representative contended that the Assistant Commissioner was not satisfied with the loss of the duplicate copy as the information was provided after a delay, and the affidavit did not contain the vehicle number. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision highlighting the necessity of satisfying the Assistant Collector about the loss of the duplicate copy to claim credit based on the original invoice. It was argued that the Trade Notice issued by the Chandigarh Collectorate was not adhered to by the appellants, leading to the denial of credit.

In the judgment, the Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides. It was acknowledged that there was no dispute regarding the receipt and utilization of goods eligible for Modvat credit. The only contention was the delay in reporting the loss of the duplicate invoice and the absence of the vehicle number in the affidavit. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had followed the Trade Notice and promptly informed the range Superintendent about the loss. The affidavit contained the invoice number, and if the Assistant Commissioner required the vehicle number, a fresh affidavit could have been requested. Relying on various decisions and a specific reference to a Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal concluded that there was no valid reason to deny credit to the appellants and allowed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing their compliance with the Trade Notice and the satisfactory documentation provided regarding the loss of the duplicate invoice. The judgment highlighted the importance of promptly reporting such incidents and providing necessary information to support the claim for Modvat credit based on the original invoice in cases of lost duplicates.