2004 (1) TMI 275 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Validity of duty paying documents post 1-4-1994, admissibility of Modvat credit based on endorsed invoices and dealer's invoices, interpretation of notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.)

In this case, the appellants received duty paid inputs from their dealers after 1-4-1994 under manufacturer's invoices issued post 1-4-1994, endorsed by the dealer. Lower authorities deemed such invoices invalid for duty payment, making the credit taken irregular. The appellants argued they also presented dealer's invoices corresponding to the manufacturer's invoices, but lower authorities rejected them for lacking crucial details. The appeal reiterated these grounds.

The Tribunal considered the crucial facts for dispute resolution, acknowledging that credit against "endorsed invoices" cannot be allowed. The dealer's invoices, lacking essential details for credit, were attached to the manufacturer's invoices. The Tribunal noted the confusion during the transition to the Modvat credit system from 1-4-1994 to 14-4-1994. The eligibility for credit was to be assessed under notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), which did not specify a format for dealer invoices but required specific details for validity.

It was established that the dealer was authorized to issue eligible invoices as per the notification. While the manufacturer's endorsed invoice alone was invalid and the dealer's invoice alone was deficient, the composite document issued by the dealer had to be considered valid under the notification's provisions. The Tribunal found that the composite document contained all required particulars, making the credit rightfully claimed by the appellants. The lower authorities erred in denying the credit, leading to the orders being set aside, and the appeal allowed with consequential relief as per the law.