2007 (1) TMI 397 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of credit due to incomplete information on invoices.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order denying credit because certain particulars were missing from the invoices. The Revenue contended that crucial details like manufacturer detail, entry and page number of RG-23D, duty payment information, and duty amount were not included in the invoices. However, the appellant argued that as per a clarification by the board, credit could be claimed based on a certificate from the stock yard for goods received from there, especially for iron and steel products sold from the stock yard of an interpreted steel plant. The appellant also highlighted an amendment to Rule 57G, stating that credit should not be refused if the document contains key information such as duty payment details, goods description, assessable value, and factory details. This amendment was deemed applicable to pending cases as per a decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in a previous case.

The Revenue supported the lower authority's findings, but the appellant produced copies of invoices showing that the goods were received from the stock yard of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel, which was considered an interpreted stock yard. Following the Board's instruction, the certificate from the stock yard regarding duty payment was deemed sufficient. Additionally, it was noted that Rule 57G had been amended. In this case, the invoices from the stock yard of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel contained the necessary information such as duty amount, assessable value, and the appellant's name. Consequently, the order denying credit was deemed unsustainable and was set aside, leading to the allowance of the appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court.