1996 (10) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of Modvat credit due to insufficient particulars on challans and invoices
- Imposition of penalties for non-compliance with notification requirements
- Challenge to the orders based on deficiencies in documents and subsequent rectifications

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with three appeals challenging a common order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The appeals contested duty demands totaling significant amounts due to the disallowance of Modvat credit based on insufficient particulars on challans from the Ludhiana Depot of Steel Authority of India and invoices from other sources. The Collector imposed penalties in addition to confirming the duty demands. The main issue revolved around the lack of necessary particulars on the documents as required by Notification No. 15/94, leading to the disallowance of Modvat credit and penalties.

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the challans and invoices did contain all required details except the rate of duty in words. Referring to previous Tribunal decisions, the counsel contended that any defects in the documents were remediable and had been rectified. The Departmental Representative supported the Collector's order, advocating for the dismissal of the appeals challenging the duty demands and penalties imposed.

Upon reviewing the submissions, previous decisions, relevant Rules, Notifications, and circulars, the Tribunal found that while the challans and invoices lacked the duty amount in words, other essential details were present. The Collector's reference to Notifications and circulars highlighted the discrepancy in the documents, emphasizing the need for compliance with prescribed formats. The Tribunal also noted the issue of some invoices being issued by unregistered persons, which was later rectified through registration, regularizing the documents.

The Tribunal concluded that the non-mention of the duty amount in words was a rectifiable defect that should not negate the benefits if other details were sufficient. The documents provided by the appellants, along with their records, needed further scrutiny to verify the completeness of information. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision, allowing the appeals by remand.