2004 (10) TMI 137 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Modvat credit for three inputs due to various grounds.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI concerned the denial of Modvat credit for three inputs purchased by the appellant. The first ground for denial was that the invoices mentioned the consignee's name along with another name, on account of whom the sale was made. The appellant argued that a previous Tribunal order in the case of Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd v. CCE, Chandigarh supported their position, stating that mentioning another party's name on the invoice does not render it ineligible for availing Modvat credit. This issue was deemed settled in favor of the appellant based on the Tribunal's previous ruling.

The second ground for denial was the absence of a pre-printed serial number on the invoice, with a computer-generated serial number instead. The appellant referred to Board Circular No. 180/14/96-CX, clarifying that machine-generated invoice numbers are valid. Consequently, this issue was also resolved in favor of the appellant.

The final reason for denial was the lack of particulars of duty payment on the purchase invoice, despite the duty amount being indicated. The appellant explained this as a clerical error, supported by a detailed letter from the supplier providing the necessary duty payment information. Citing a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE, Madras v. CEGAT, Madras, the appellant argued that credit cannot be denied due to such omissions. The Tribunal found that all issues raised by the appellant were settled in their favor, leading to the acceptance of the appeal. As a result, the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief granted to the appellants.