2008 (9) TMI 118 - HC - Central Excise

Credit - Tribunal found that the assessee had produced a certificate from the manufacturer showing payment of duty invoice-wise and, thus, merely because the dealer, who issued invoice, was not registered, was not enough to deny benefit of modvat to the assessee - In view of the finding, recorded by Tribunal that the claim of Modvat credit was genuine, goods having been received and duty having been paid on the inputs, no any substantial question of law arises in this appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Modvat credit claim under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Denial of Modvat credit due to invoices not issued by a registered dealer.
3. Applicability of the amendment to Rule 57G of the Rules.
4. Tribunal's authority to overrule statutory provisions.
5. Production of certificates from supplier-manufacturers after invoice issuance.

Analysis:

1. The appellant claimed Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The adjudicating authority initially allowed the claim, stating that the goods were received by the assessee and used in manufacturing. However, the appellate authority reversed this decision, citing that the invoices were not issued by a registered dealer as required by the Rules.

2. The Tribunal reinstated the adjudicating authority's view, emphasizing that the appellant received invoices from both the dealer and the manufacturer, with the manufacturer's invoices mentioning the appellant as the consignee. Additionally, the appellant provided a certificate from the manufacturer, confirming duty payment and supply of goods. The Tribunal noted an amendment to Rule 57G, stating that credit should not be denied if essential details like duty payment, goods description, assessable value, and factory details were present, even if all particulars were not mentioned in the document.

3. The department raised questions regarding the Tribunal's decision to allow Modvat credit on invoices not in the name of the appellant, the Tribunal's authority to override Rule 57G, and the relevance of certificates produced post-invoice issuance. The counsel for the assessee argued that the Tribunal correctly restored the Modvat credit benefit based on the Rule amendment, which prevented denial of credit if necessary details were included in the documents.

4. The Tribunal's finding that the appellant had submitted a manufacturer's certificate demonstrating duty payment invoice-wise led to the conclusion that the lack of registration of the dealer issuing the invoice was insufficient to reject the Modvat benefit. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal.