2008 (9) TMI 737 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Credit denial based on invoice details and procedural lapses under Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the denial of credit amounting to Rs. 12,02,982/-, Rs. 20,62,759/-, and Rs. 6,67,259/- due to various reasons such as the invoice not being in favor of the appellant unit, lack of necessary certificate under Rule 57E, and insufficient details in the invoices as required by the Central Excise Rules. The appellant did not challenge the denial of credit on other grounds during the appeal hearing. The appellant argued that as per the amended Rules 57G and 57T of the Central Excise Rules, credit should not be denied merely for minor procedural lapses. They cited a Board's Circular stating that proper inquiries should be made regarding duty payment, receipt of inputs in the factory, and their use in manufacturing excisable goods before denying credit. The appellant contended that in this case, there was no dispute regarding duty payment, receipt, and use of goods, making the denial of credit unsustainable.

The revenue, on the other hand, argued that verification was necessary as per the amended provisions of Rule 57G and the Board's circular. They justified the denial of credit due to the duty paying documents not complying with the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal noted the amendments made through Notification No. 7/99, dated 9-2-99, to Rule 57G and Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, along with the issuance of the Board's circular on 23-2-99. The circular emphasized conducting proper inquiries before issuing Show Cause Notices for procedural lapses and ensuring that Modvat credit is correct. It directed that adjudication proceedings should be initiated only if after due inquiry, incorrect credit is found. The Tribunal, considering the circular applicable to pending cases, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, taking into account the amended provisions of Rule 57G and Rule 57T, and providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.