9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (1) TMI 286 - HC - Central Excise
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 35-G of Central Excise Act, 1944 against Tribunal's order allowing modvat credit on invoices not in the name of respondent, overruling Rule 57G, and overlooking previous decisions.
Summary: Issue 1: Modvat credit denial on technical grounds The High Court considered the appeal challenging the denial of Modvat credit to the assessee-respondent due to incorrect particulars of consigner and consignee on invoices. The Court noted that the lack of correct particulars does not prevent the assessee from claiming Modvat credit, citing an amendment to Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, the Court found no legal basis to uphold the denial of Modvat credit to the assessee-respondent. Issue 2: Overruling of Rule 57G by Tribunal The Court addressed the question of whether the Tribunal had the authority to overrule the statutory provisions of Rule 57G of the Rules. The Court's analysis focused on the Tribunal's decision to allow Modvat credit despite the invoices not meeting the specified requirements under Rule 57G. The Court's conclusion emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was in line with the amended rule, thereby indicating that the Tribunal did not overrule the statutory provisions. Issue 3: Previous decisions and certificates of supplier manufacturers The Court examined whether the Tribunal could disregard its earlier decisions in cases involving certificates of supplier manufacturers provided by respondents after the issuance of invoices for the supply of goods. The Court referenced specific cases, including M/s. Avis Electronics and Balmer Lawrie, to assess the Tribunal's handling of similar situations. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds to entertain the appeal, as the production of certificates by the respondents post-invoice issuance did not impact the validity of claiming Modvat credit. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial questions of law arose for determination based on the issues presented in the case.
|
