2013 (11) TMI 588 - AT - Central Excise

Validity of Invoices - Waiver of Pre-deposit Whether invoices should be properly printed, serially numbered and should contain all the details as required under Central Excise Rule, 1944 - Held that - From the reading of the Rule 11(2), it is noticed that the requirement of printed, serially numbered is not mentioned in the rule Following PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING P LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-II 2012 (7) TMI 53 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - there is no requirement under rule 11 of Central Excise Rule, 1944 that invoice number should be printed on the invoices - the appellant has a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit - Pre deposit of the excise duty and penalty waived till the disposal stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether invoices should be properly printed, serially numbered, and contain all required details under Central Excise Rule, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed by M/s. N C Cable Ltd. seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty along with penalty imposed by CCE (Appeals). The key issue in this appeal revolves around the requirement of invoices to be properly printed, serially numbered, and containing all necessary details as per Central Excise Rule, 1944. The Revenue relied on Chapter IV of CBEC's Excise manual, emphasizing the importance of serial numbers being printed or generated by a franking machine, rejecting hand-written serial numbers. Both lower authorities upheld the demand and penalty based on these instructions.

Upon hearing both sides, the presiding judge referred to Rule 11(2) during the relevant period, which mandated invoices to be serially numbered and include specific details like registration number, description, classification, time and date of removal, rate of duty, quantity, value of goods, and duty payable. However, the rule did not explicitly require invoices to be printed or have serial numbers printed on them. The judge cited a precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd., which established that Rule 11 of Central Excise Rule, 1944 does not mandate invoice numbers to be printed.

Consequently, the judge found in favor of the appellant, determining a strong case for waiving the pre-deposit. The judge granted the stay against the recovery of excise duty and penalty until the appeal's final disposal. This decision was made based on the interpretation of the relevant rules and the precedent set by the Tribunal in a similar case, highlighting the absence of a specific requirement for printed invoice numbers under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. The judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of rules governing the printing and numbering of invoices in excise matters.