2003 (10) TMI 83 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - Credit on invoices marked 'non-modvatable' - Duty paying documents - Reversal of credit - HELD THAT - The appellants had produced the said Bill of Entry for perusal of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), and pointed out that in the column of total amount of duty Rs. 4,89,377/- had shown, which has been arrived at from the assessable value of Rs. 24,46,883/-. On computation of CVD @ 20%, duty amounting to Rs. 4,89,377/- has been paid under Cash Receipt No. 8047, dated 24-4-1996 of the Bombay Custom House. The said Bill of Entry also contains a stamp to the effect the A.D.F. GR 7A C.V.D. PAID . This remark if duly signed by the proper officer of the Custom House. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the appellants have not produced any documentary evidence to support their claim that CVD was paid. If the remarks made on the Bill of Entry by the proper officer are not considered as documentary evidence, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is suggesting that the goods were cleared without payment of duty, which is not possible once a Bill of Entry is filed and assessed. Therefore, the order passed by him in this regard is highly arbitrary and illegal. On this ground also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Denial of credit on invoices marked 'non-modvatable'
- Disallowance of credit for receiving lesser quantity than invoiced
- Denial of credit due to lack of original copies of invoices
- Disallowance of credit for Additional Duty payment

Denial of credit on invoices marked 'non-modvatable': The appeal challenges the denial of credit on invoices marked 'non-modvatable' by the supplier, arguing that the buyer has the right to take Modvat credit regardless of the supplier passing on the credit. The Tribunal holds that the buyer, not the Department, bears the responsibility to ensure credit availability when faced with such invoices. It deems the appellant's failure to seek clarification from the supplier before claiming credit as an error in judgment, leading to the disallowance of credit on these invoices.

Disallowance of credit for receiving lesser quantity than invoiced: The appellant's plea to avail Modvat credit for the full duty amount despite receiving less quantity than invoiced is rejected. The Tribunal finds the decision relied upon by the appellant not directly applicable to the case, upholding the lower authority's directive to reverse the credit for the quantity shortfall.

Denial of credit due to lack of original copies of invoices: Credit denial on specific invoices is contested by the appellant, who claims to have produced the necessary documents before the Range Superintendent. While credit for one invoice is deemed justifiable based on the evidence provided, credit for another invoice is rightly disallowed due to insufficient documentary proof, highlighting the importance of proper documentation for credit claims.

Disallowance of credit for Additional Duty payment: The appellant's assertion of paying Additional Duty is not substantiated with documentary evidence, leading to the denial of credit for the corresponding bill of entry. The Tribunal emphasizes the necessity of supporting documentation to validate duty payments and credits, ultimately upholding the denial of credit in this instance.

Separate Judgment: The Tribunal rules in favor of the appellant, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) orders due to various discrepancies and failures to adhere to statutory provisions. The judgment highlights the importance of following legal requirements and proper documentation in determining credit eligibility and disputes related to duty payments.