2005 (12) TMI 37 - HC - Central Excise

Central Excise - Cenvat/Modvat credit - Credit taken on the basis of original invoices is admissible - Credit not deniable on merit - No infirmity in impugned order

Summary

Issues:
- Whether Modvat credit on original documents, not prescribed, could be availed without following the laid down procedure?

Analysis:
1. The appeals by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were directed against a common order of the Tribunal. The respondent-assessee was availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for the manufacture of Carbon Black. The issue arose when the assessee took Modvat credit on original invoices without permission, leading to notices for recovery and penalties under the Rules.

2. The Commissioner remanded the case, and in the subsequent proceedings, the Modvat credit was allowed by the adjudicating authority. The Revenue appealed to the Commissioner, and later the assessee appealed to the Tribunal, which allowed the appeals. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal ignored the mandatory provision of furnishing duplicate copies of invoices under Rule 57G(2A) of the Rules, making the Modvat credit inadmissible.

3. The High Court analyzed the statutory provisions and held that the intent of the Legislature determines whether a provision is mandatory or directory. Rule 57A allows a manufacturer to claim credit on duty paid goods used in manufacturing specified goods. Rule 57G outlines the procedure for taking credit on duty paid inputs, with sub-rule (6) providing an exception for cases where the duplicate copy of the invoice is lost in transit, subject to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner.

4. The Tribunal relied on a Trade Notice allowing credit on original invoices subject to the Assistant Collector's satisfaction. Considering the factual findings of both appellate authorities below, the High Court concluded that Modvat credit should not be denied to the assessee on merits. The Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the question raised by the Revenue did not qualify as a substantial question of law based on established legal principles.

5. The judgment emphasizes the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in a manner consistent with legislative intent to prevent misuse and fraud while ensuring the benefits of the legislation are not defeated by technicalities. The decision highlights the need to consider factual findings and established legal principles in determining the admissibility of claims under excise laws, ultimately upholding the assessee's entitlement to Modvat credit in this case.