2000 (2) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of credit on invoices without "Duplicate Copy for Transporters" printed
- Eligibility of MODVAT credit on packing and forwarding charges collected in respect of inputs
- Denial of MODVAT credit due to vague and ambiguous declaration

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of credit on invoices without "Duplicate Copy for Transporters" printed
The main issue in the Appeals was whether credit could be granted based on invoices not printed as duplicate for Transporters. The Appellants argued that the rubber-stamped words "Duplicate Copy for Transporters" on the invoices should suffice for credit eligibility, emphasizing that minor technical discrepancies should not lead to credit denial. The Department contended that without the words being printed, the invoices were not valid duty-paying documents for MODVAT credit. However, the Tribunal noted that the Department failed to refute the presence of the rubber-stamped words, stating that the absence of printed words should not bar MODVAT credit. Referring to a previous decision, the Tribunal highlighted that a rubber stamp marking met the legal requirements for credit validity. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, allowing credit based on the stamped invoices.

Issue 2: Eligibility of MODVAT credit on packing and forwarding charges
Regarding the eligibility of MODVAT credit on packing and forwarding charges related to inputs, the Appellants argued that such credit was permissible as they were only claiming credit on the excise duty paid by the Supplier on the inputs. The Department contended that since the packing charges were integral to the goods and not considered inputs or capital goods, they should not be subject to duty separately. However, the Tribunal referred to Rule 57A's explanation, which clarified that packing materials' cost not included in the final product's assessable value could be eligible for MODVAT credit. As the charges were included in the assessable value, the Tribunal deemed the Appellants eligible for MODVAT credit on the duty paid for packing and forwarding charges. The Tribunal also emphasized the permissibility of taking MODVAT credit at the time of goods receipt as specified in the duty paying documents.

Issue 3: Denial of MODVAT credit due to vague and ambiguous declaration
In one of the Appeals, MODVAT credit was denied to the Appellants due to a declaration dated 27-3-1995 being deemed vague and ambiguous, lacking proper goods description. The Appellants argued that the declaration was clear and timely filed before claiming MODVAT credit. The Assistant Commissioner's disallowance of credit for certain products based on the declaration's alleged vagueness was not sufficiently supported in the order-in-appeal. The Tribunal found no substantial reasons to disallow MODVAT credit for those products, ultimately ruling in favor of the Appellants in all three Appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Appellants' rights to claim MODVAT credit based on rubber-stamped invoices, allowed MODVAT credit on packing and forwarding charges, and rejected the denial of credit due to a purportedly vague declaration, emphasizing the importance of compliance with legal requirements for credit eligibility.