1996 (9) TMI 404 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with Section 35F in appeal dismissal.
2. Acceptance of vouchers/challans as duty-paying documents for Modvat credit.
3. Reversal of entry for amount paid.

Issue 1: Non-compliance with Section 35F in appeal dismissal:
The appeal was filed against the Collector (Appeals) order, alleging erroneous dismissal due to non-compliance with Section 35F. The appellants contended that they had paid the amount in question by making an entry in RG 23A Part II and provided proof of the same to the Collector (Appeals) before the order was passed. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had indeed made the payment, as evidenced by the documents submitted, and concluded that no further deposit was required. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the dispute had effectively ended, and there was no need for a remand.

Issue 2: Acceptance of vouchers/challans as duty-paying documents for Modvat credit:
The case involved inputs purchased from Bhilai Steel Plant, received directly with gate passes/challans indicating duty payment. Despite the Superintendent issuing a show cause notice and the Assistant Collector denying Modvat credit, the appellants argued that the Board's instructions permitted such documents for claiming Modvat. The Tribunal acknowledged the validity of the challans/vouchers issued by public sector undertakings as duty-paying documents, citing previous orders and the Board's circular dated 11-2-1994. The Departmental Representative agreed that the appellants' case aligned with the Tribunal's orders and the Board's instructions, supporting the acceptance of the documents as proof of duty payment.

Issue 3: Reversal of entry for amount paid:
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the agreement of the Departmental Representative, granted the appellants' request for reversal of the entry made on 22-5-1993 in RG 23A Part II. This reversal was deemed sufficient in light of the rejected stay application by the Collector, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and reverse the entry directly addressed the issue of the amount paid and resolved the matter effectively without the need for further remand or deposit.