1997 (3) TMI 172 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit due to missing particulars in invoices issued by wholesale dealers.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Modvat credit due to missing particulars in invoices issued by wholesale dealers

The case revolved around the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants due to missing particulars in the invoices issued by wholesale dealers, Laxmi Industries and Balaji Trading Company. The appellants purchased sugar as an input for their final product, aerated waters, which are both notified under Notification No.177/86. The system of G.P.1. was followed before 1-4-1994, after which the invoice system was introduced. The wholesale dealers' invoices did not contain the required particulars under Notification 15/94, resulting in the denial of Modvat credit. However, the wholesale dealers enclosed the manufacturers' invoices with proper endorsement indicating the duty paid status of the goods. The appellant argued that the benefit of Modvat credit should be allowed based on the endorsed invoices of the manufacturers accompanying the wholesale dealers' invoices. The Tribunal noted that the wholesale dealers' invoices did not comply with Notification 15/94 but acknowledged the duty paid status through the manufacturers' invoices. The Tribunal found no substance in the lower authority's denial of Modvat credit and remanded the matter to verify the duty paid status with the records maintained by the wholesale dealers.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty on the appellant

In addition to denying Modvat credit, the lower authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,000 on the appellant. The appellant contended that the penalty was unwarranted as they had obtained endorsements from the wholesale dealers regarding the duty paid status of the goods. The Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, found no grounds for the penalty imposition. The Tribunal emphasized that in the circumstances of the case, there was no justification for the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings regarding the verification of duty paid status, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of denial of Modvat credit and the imposition of a penalty, emphasizing the need to verify the duty paid status of the goods purchased by the appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of compliance with notification requirements while also considering the practical challenges during the transitional period of changing procedures.