2010 (2) TMI 463 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - Documents for taking credit - Certificate issued by suppliers evidencing payment of differential duty under Rule 57E of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Held that - certificate issued covered by relevant invoices, credit available. invoice issued by supplier not containing duty payment details. Revenue s submission that no debit entry shown in invoice. Held that - party permitted to maintain PLA within seven days of raising invoice. SCN annot be issued for procedural lapses as per C.B.E &C. Circular No. 441/7/99-CX, dated 23.2.1999. credit available.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against disallowance of credit amounting to Rs. 30,59,169.00 for specific items.

Analysis:
1. Issue 1 - Credit Disallowed for Sl. Nos. 167 & 243:
- The Appellant argued that the credit was taken based on Certificate A issued by suppliers, evidencing payment of differential duty under Rule 57E of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Cited judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court supporting additional duty credit on inputs.
- Respondent contended Certificate A is not valid. Tribunal found Certificates A covered by relevant invoices, allowing the credit.

2. Issue 2 - Credit Disallowed for Sl. Nos. 4, 8, 9 & 133:
- Appellant stated IISCO was allowed to mention duty payment details after a week. Emphasized actual duty payment by IISCO and use of goods in the factory were not disputed.
- Respondent argued no duty payment details in IISCO's invoice and no proper declaration. Tribunal noted the procedural lapse was curable and allowed the credit.

3. Issue 3 - Credit Disallowed for Sl. Nos. 36, 52, 117(2) & 159:
- Appellant explained the classification and usage of items under different headings. Mentioned the mistake in declaration and reliance on a Tribunal decision and Board's Circular.
- Respondent contended improper declaration and non-capital goods classification. Tribunal found procedural mistakes do not warrant credit denial, following Circular, and allowed the credit.

4. Issue 4 - Credit Disallowed for Grinding Wheels:
- Appellant argued the item was classifiable under a specific heading and eligible for credit even before a certain date. Cited judgments supporting their claim.
- Respondent claimed the goods are not capital goods. Tribunal found the Grinding Wheels were used for specific purposes, allowing the credit based on precedents.

5. Final Decision:
- Tribunal found no dispute on duty payment and goods receipt, rendering the disallowed credit unsustainable. Set aside the impugned Order and allowed the Appeal.

This detailed analysis covers the contentions of both parties, the legal arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the Appellant.