2001 (11) TMI 102 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Whether non-mention of printed serial number in the invoices will disentitle the assessees to claim Modvat credit or not.

Summary:
1. The issue in consideration is whether the absence of printed serial numbers on invoices would affect the eligibility of assessees to claim Modvat credit. The conflicting views on this matter necessitated a reference to the Appellate Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal previously considered a similar issue in a different case and concluded that stamping serial numbers from a franking machine or typewriter complies with the rules. This decision was based on an examination of relevant provisions of law and previous cases.

3. The appeal by Revenue challenged an order allowing the respondent, engaged in manufacturing S.O. Dyes, to claim Modvat credit on inputs like Soda Ash. The dispute arose from discrepancies in the invoices issued by traders, including missing printed serial numbers and 'duplicate for transporter' markings.

4. The Rules require invoices to have printed serial numbers and specific markings for credit purposes. The appellate authority, citing Tribunal decisions, emphasized that procedural irregularities should not disqualify assessees if they meet the substantial requirements of the Modvat Scheme.

5. The appellate authority relied on previous Tribunal decisions, such as Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CCE, to support the view that technical lapses like missing printed serial numbers should not deny Modvat credit if other requirements are met.

6. The Tribunal noted that while stamped or typed serial numbers comply with rules, handwritten numbers may pose a higher risk of misuse. However, in cases like Hindustan Radiators Co. v. CCE, substantive compliance with the Modvat Scheme should prevail over procedural lapses.

7. The Appellate Collector's findings confirmed that the inputs were received and utilized in production, with invoices verified by the department despite discrepancies. This verification supported the claim for Modvat credit.

8. In a related case, the Tribunal clarified that hand-written serial numbers may not meet the requirement of a 'printed serial number,' but if the goods covered by such invoices are duly verified and used in production without risk of misuse, Modvat credit should not be denied. The matter was referred back for further consideration.

Judge's Separate Judgment: None.