2006 (1) TMI 393 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents - Invoice - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Hearing - Adjournment, several adjournment

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for input credit when invoice description differs from actual receipt
- Addressing of invoice documents to Branch Office instead of Factory or Registered Office
- Denial of Modvat credit, penalty imposition, and interest charges
- Request for adjournment due to consultant's ill-health
- Proviso to sub-section 1A of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1994 regarding adjournments
- Appellant's acknowledgment of clerical error and contention regarding Form XVII as proof of receipt

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the denial of Modvat credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the imposition of penalties and interest charges. The main issue revolves around the eligibility for input credit when the description in the invoice differs from the actual receipt at the factory and when the invoice documents are addressed to the Branch Office instead of the Factory or Registered Office. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower authority's decision and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest charges under relevant rules and sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appellant sought adjournments citing various reasons, including ill-health of the consultant. However, the Tribunal noted multiple adjournment requests and applied the proviso to sub-section 1A of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, limiting adjournments to three times during the hearing of the appeal. As the requests exceeded this limit, no further adjournments were granted in the interest of justice.

Regarding the appellant's argument of a clerical error and the use of Form XVII as proof of receipt, the Tribunal examined the case records and found that the CENVAT credit was utilized without adequate documentary evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted discrepancies between the description in the duty paying documents and the actual items received at the factory. The Tribunal agreed that the Form XXVII was not sufficient proof and upheld the decision to deny the credit, impose penalties, and dismiss the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments, emphasizing the lack of substantiated claims and the misuse of CENVAT credit without proper documentation. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the authorities below was upheld.