2003 (12) TMI 245 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of Modvat credit based on invoices issued by the manufacturer and endorsed by depots, address discrepancy on invoices, availing credit based on certificates issued by Superintendent.

Analysis:
1. Admissibility of Modvat Credit based on Endorsed Invoices:
The dispute centered around the admissibility of Modvat credit based on invoices issued by the manufacturer and endorsed by its depots. The appellants argued that the invoices were endorsed by the manufacturer's depots and not an intermediary buyer, making them eligible for Modvat credit. They cited a Circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarifying the acceptability of such invoices for Modvat credit if D-3 intimation procedures were followed. The appellants also relied on a Tribunal decision to support their contention that the Larger Bench decision did not apply in their case. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument and ruled in their favor.

2. Address Discrepancy on Invoices:
Regarding invoices showing the factory address at Kim but goods delivered to the Surat factory, the appellants clarified that the goods were indeed received and utilized at the Surat factory. They referenced a Tribunal decision to support their stance that such discrepancies did not invalidate the Modvat credit claim. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, applying the precedent that when goods are received at the factory despite the address discrepancy, the credit claim remains valid.

3. Availing Credit based on Superintendent's Certificates:
The appellants defended their availing of credit based on certificates issued by the Superintendent in lieu of gate passes before 31-3-1994. They argued that a Tribunal decision supported the validity of such credits taken before 30-6-1994. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' compliance with the notification allowing credit based on such documents and noted the absence of dispute regarding the receipt and utilization of inputs. Relying on a Larger Bench decision emphasizing that minor procedural lapses should not deny Modvat credit benefits, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants on all three issues, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements and the actual receipt and utilization of inputs. The rulings were supported by relevant Tribunal decisions and Circulars, ensuring the appellants' entitlement to the Modvat credit claimed.