2007 (1) TMI 183 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat / Modvat Duty Paying Documents Valid Documents Loss of original and duplicate copies of Invoice - held that - Though Rule 52A in Sub. R. 3 lays down requirement of production of original and in absence thereof a duplicate one cannot oblivious of the fact that in some cases if original and the duplicate both are lost the claim cannot be defeated especially when department did not dispute receipt of the goods their use in the manufacture of final product and duty paid character of inputs. Since the duty was paid for the inputs and inputs were used in captive consumption for manufacture of final product merely because original and duplicate copy as required by Rule 52A C (i)(ii) were lost the claim could not have been defeated especially when certified copy duly issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent was produced credit allowed

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding Modvat credit claim based on a certified copy of the invoice.
2. Validity of Modvat credit claim when original and duplicate copies of the invoice are lost in transit.
3. Applicability of Rule 52A in situations where both original and duplicate copies of the invoice are unavailable.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
The appeal was filed against the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order allowing Modvat credit based on a certified copy of the invoice issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent. The main question was whether the procedure for availing Modvat credit, not followed due to missing original and duplicate copies of the invoice, substantively disallowed the credit. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim citing non-fulfillment of Rule 57G, which requires production of the original copy marked as original and duplicate for the transporter. However, the Commissioner (Appeal-II) and CESTAT held in favor of the respondent-assessee, emphasizing the duty paid character of the inputs and the use in manufacturing the final product. The High Court agreed with this interpretation, stating that if both original and duplicate copies are lost, the claim cannot be defeated when certified by the jurisdictional Superintendent.

Issue 2: Validity of Modvat credit claim with lost original and duplicate copies
The respondent-assessee's claim for Modvat credit was initially rejected by the Assessing Officer due to the unavailability of both original and duplicate copies of the invoice. However, the Commissioner (Appeal-II) and CESTAT allowed the claim based on the certified copy issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the duty was paid for the inputs and used in the manufacture of the final product, making the claim valid even in the absence of the original and duplicate copies.

Issue 3: Applicability of Rule 52A in case of missing original and duplicate copies
Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires the production of original and, in the absence thereof, a duplicate copy of the invoice. In this case, both the original and duplicate copies were lost in transit, leading to the rejection of the Modvat credit claim by the Assessing Officer. However, the High Court noted that when both copies are missing, the claim cannot be defeated, especially when the certified copy from the jurisdictional Superintendent is available. The court emphasized the department's acknowledgment of the receipt of goods and their use in manufacturing the final product, supporting the validity of the Modvat credit claim.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal summarily, finding no substantial question of law in the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of the duty paid character of inputs and the use in manufacturing, ultimately supporting the respondent-assessee's entitlement to Modvat credit based on the certified copy of the invoice issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent.

← Previous Next →