2006 (11) TMI 478 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Modvat credit due to incomplete particulars in invoices.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order denying Modvat credit due to incomplete particulars in the invoices issued by the registered depot to Indian Oil Corporation. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the receipt and use of inputs but denied credit citing missing information like duty payment particulars and manufacturer's name on the invoices. The Commissioner also rejected rectified copies of invoices provided by the appellant as they were not certified by Revenue officers. However, the appellant argued that duty payment particulars were present in the invoices, supported by defaced copies showing all necessary details, including duty amount and supplier's name. The appellant also referenced a Board circular emphasizing the need for enquiries before issuing show cause notices for procedural lapses in duty payments.

The Revenue maintained its stance based on the findings in the impugned order, highlighting the challenge of verifying duty payments without complete particulars. Despite the Revenue's objections, the Tribunal noted that the defaced copies of invoices clearly displayed duty payment particulars and the manufacturer's name. Additionally, the Board's circular from 1999 emphasized the requirement for enquiries before penal action for Modvat credit availment errors, ensuring duty payment verification and proper utilization in manufacturing processes. As the invoices in question contained the necessary details, including duty payment specifics and manufacturer's name, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the denial of Modvat credit, emphasizing the importance of complete particulars in invoices for verifying duty payments and ensuring proper credit availment. The case highlighted the significance of thorough enquiries before penal actions related to Modvat credit discrepancies, as outlined in relevant circulars to safeguard against procedural lapses. The decision underscored the necessity of accurate documentation and compliance with duty payment requirements to support legitimate credit claims.