Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2008 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 261 - AT - Central ExciseCredit on basis of extra copy of invoices & on basis of invoices baring type/hand written serial numbers, not admissible credit can t be denied when invoices bear computer generated serial numbers or if invoices have pre-printed numbers credit not deniable even if availed after period of 6 months if credit is availed on basis of certificate issued u/r 57E matter remanded for credit denied in respect of inputs not accompanied by invoice, short received inputs & return of inputs to supplier
Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit on invoices without preprinted serial numbers. 2. Denial of Modvat credit on invoices with typed or handwritten serial numbers. 3. Denial of Modvat credit based on the timing of availing credit. 4. Denial of Modvat credit due to availing credit on extra copy of invoice. 5. Denial of Modvat credit for inputs not accompanied by an invoice. 6. Denial of Modvat credit due to quantification mistake in confirming demand. 7. Denial of excess credit taken. 8. Denial of credit taken on NIL duty invoices. 9. Denial of credit taken on spanner supplied with the motor vehicle. Analysis: 1. The first issue pertains to the denial of Modvat credit on invoices without preprinted serial numbers. The tribunal allowed the credit for invoices with computer-generated serial numbers, citing relevant CBEC circulars and precedents. The denial was overturned, and the credit was allowed for such invoices. 2. The second issue involves the denial of Modvat credit on invoices with typed or handwritten serial numbers. The tribunal upheld the denial as per rules requiring pre-printed serial numbers for credit extension to prevent duplicate claims. The denial was supported, and the Commissioner's order was upheld. 3. The third issue concerns the denial of Modvat credit based on the timing of availing credit. The tribunal allowed the credit citing a specific Tribunal decision that exempted the six-month rule for availing credit based on a certificate under Rule 57E. The denial was overturned, and the credit was directed to be allowed. 4. The fourth issue addresses the denial of Modvat credit due to availing credit on an extra copy of the invoice. The tribunal upheld the denial, emphasizing that credit can only be allowed based on the duplicate copy as per rules. The denial was supported, and the Commissioner's order was upheld. 5. The fifth issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit for inputs not accompanied by an invoice. The matter was remanded back for verification as the appellants produced the invoice later. The tribunal directed the original authority to extend credit if the invoice was found genuine. 6. The sixth issue involves the denial of Modvat credit due to a quantification mistake in confirming demand. The tribunal remanded the matter for rectification of the calculation mistake pointed out by the appellants. The matter was directed to be reviewed for correcting the demand amount. 7. The seventh issue pertains to the denial of excess credit taken. The tribunal remanded the matter for verification as the appellant claimed to have already debited the credit. The lower authority was directed to allow the credit if verified. 8. The eighth issue addresses the denial of credit taken on NIL duty invoices. The tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the acceptance of such procedures by the Department and citing relevant precedents. The lower authority was directed to review and allow the credit if the conditions were met. 9. The ninth issue concerns the denial of credit taken on a spanner supplied with the motor vehicle. The tribunal allowed the credit as the value of the spanner was included in the vehicle's value, making it eligible for credit. The denial was overturned, and the credit was allowed. In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with various findings and directions provided for each issue raised, resulting in some denials being upheld while others were overturned based on legal interpretations and precedents cited during the proceedings.
|