2007 (9) TMI 177 - AT - Central Excise

As appellants are having both invoices issued by dealer & issued by manufacturer, credit can not be denied on ground that Name of appellant was cutoff from the manufacturer invoice But no evidence produced to show that goods were used in repair of machinery by job worker so credit is deniable

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit for specific invoices.
2. Entitlement for credit based on invoices issued by manufacturer and dealer.
3. Evidence requirement for claiming credit on specific goods used in repair.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal was filed against the denial of Modvat credit for invoice Nos. 547-548 dated 11.10.2002 and invoice No.27 dated 10.9.2002. The appellant contended that credit was wrongly denied for these invoices.

Issue 2: Regarding Invoice Nos. 547 and 548 dated 11.10.2002, the appellant argued that the goods supplied by the manufacturer to the job worker for machinery repair should allow credit. The revenue objected, stating the appellant's name was removed from the manufacturer's invoice. However, as the dealer issued invoices in favor of the appellant, credit could not be denied solely based on the manufacturer's invoice, leading to the appeal being allowed.

Issue 3: Concerning invoice No.27 dated 10.9.2002, the appellant claimed credit as the goods were supplied to the job worker for machinery repair. The revenue disputed this, citing lack of evidence that the goods were used in machinery repair. The appellant presented an invoice from the job worker for different goods, leading to the denial of credit for this invoice as evidence did not support its use in machinery repair.

The judgment upheld the denial of credit for invoice No.27 due to insufficient evidence but allowed credit for Invoice Nos. 547-548 based on the dealer's invoices. Additionally, no penalty was imposed considering the circumstances of the case.