2005 (4) TMI 528 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Modvat credit based on invoice discrepancy.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the denial of Modvat credit to the respondents amounting to Rs. 3,840 due to an issue with the invoice where the name of the respondents was not shown as the consignee but as the buyer. The appellant argued that this was a procedural error, citing relevant circulars and judgments to support their case.

Upon review of the records and hearing arguments from both sides, it was found that the invoice in question was issued by a specific company, indicating clearance for home consumption without specifying delivery to the respondents. Although the respondents' address was mentioned as the buyer, there was no clarity on who placed the order and received the goods. The appellant's claim of direct receipt from the manufacturing company and payment to them lacked substantial evidence.

The appellant presented a post-order affidavit from the company's General Manager claiming direct delivery to the respondents, but this was deemed insufficient as it lacked supporting documentation or official correspondence. Additionally, a certificate from a logistics company was also dismissed as it was created after the order without proper details or reference to the invoice number.

The Board's circular and legal precedents cited by the appellant were deemed inapplicable to the current case, as the omission of the respondents' name in the invoice was not considered a technical error. The judgment referenced cases where specific circumstances justified deviations from standard procedures, which did not align with the present situation.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the revenue was allowed, granting consequential relief in accordance with the law.