Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1996 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (11) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Grant of Modvat credit for goods received without the marking "duplicate" on the invoice. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras dealt with the issue of whether Modvat credit could be granted for goods received under an invoice that did not carry the marking "duplicate" for assessment. The appellants argued that the suppliers, a Government of India organization under the Ministry of Defence, had their own format of invoices with designated copies. The carrier's copy of the invoice was considered the duplicate copy, as per the list provided. They contended that the absence of the word "duplicate" on the invoice should not penalize them, as the carrier's copy served the purpose of a duplicate. They cited Rule 52A and Rule 57G, emphasizing that the duplicate copy of the invoice accompanying the goods is valid for Modvat credit. They requested verification with the suppliers to confirm the nature of the invoice and sought condonation for the missing endorsement of "duplicate." The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and considering the arguments, observed that Rule 57G mandates goods to be received under the cover of a duplicate invoice for Modvat credit eligibility. It was noted that the carrier's copy, being the first copy of the invoice while the original was sent by post, could prima facie be considered the duplicate copy. However, verification was deemed necessary. The Tribunal criticized the lower authority for not conducting verification before rejecting the appellant's claim. It was held that as long as it could be established that the goods were dispatched under a duplicate invoice from the supplier, Modvat credit should be allowed as per Rule 57G. Consequently, the appellants were deemed entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit if verification with the suppliers confirmed that the received invoice was a duplicate copy. The appeal was allowed on these grounds, granting the appellants the Modvat credit benefit upon verification with the suppliers.
|