2006 (12) TMI 424 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Denial of Modvat credit based on incomplete Bill of Entry and missing duty payment particulars in the invoice.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the appellant appealed against the denial of Modvat credit due to discrepancies in the Bill of Entry and invoice. The appellant contended that there was a dispute regarding duty payment on the received goods. The appellant argued that the Bill of Entry from DHL World Wide Express Courier should be considered a valid duty paying document, even though it lacked the appellant's name. Additionally, the appellant claimed credit for goods returned from their own depot. However, the Commissioner found that the Bill of Entry provided by the appellant did not have the appellant's name mentioned and only bore a rubber stamp from DHL, leading to the denial of credit. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the lack of the appellant's name and signature on the Bill of Entry justified the denial of credit.

Regarding the invoices, it was found that the original duty paying documents used by the appellant during goods clearance were not mentioned in the depot-issued invoices. As a result, the appellant failed to establish a clear correlation between the goods cleared from the depot and the duty payment. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the denial of credit based on the missing duty payment particulars in the invoices. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and correlation between duty payment and goods clearance to claim Modvat credit.