2003 (9) TMI 255 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Entitlement to take Modvat credit on an "extra" copy of invoice issued more than six months prior.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai raised the issue of whether the appellant was entitled to take Modvat credit based on an "extra" copy of the invoice, as the original/duplicate was lost. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay in taking credit was due to the inputs being sent to a job worker, causing a delay in returning the goods. However, Rule 52A mandates the issue of an invoice in original and duplicate copies, with no provision for taking credit on "extra" copies. Additionally, Rule 57G(2A) prohibits taking credit beyond six months from the duty paying document's issuance, with no exemption for situations like the one presented by the appellant.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that the notice signed by the Superintendent was invalid. While the appellant argued that Rule 57G(2) required a notice from the Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal clarified that in cases of wrongly taken credit due to error, the proper officer, which includes the jurisdictional Superintendent, can issue a notice under Rule 57G(1). Therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside based on the circumstances of the case, with the appeal being allowed in part.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures for taking credit under the relevant rules and emphasizes the role of the proper officer in issuing notices in cases of errors or misconstructions regarding duty payments and credits.