1997 (11) TMI 294 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Availment of Modvat credit on the strength of endorsed bills issued post-revised procedure under Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.) and Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.).

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal involved the availment of Modvat credit by M/s. Durga Steels Pvt. Ltd. based on bills endorsed by M/s. Dalhousie Udyog, which were issued after the revised procedure under Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.) and Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.) came into effect from 1-4-1994. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, confirmed a demand of Rs 98,923.36 against the appellants due to the issuance of bills post the procedural change.

2. The appellant's representative argued that the dealers were unaware of the revised requirements post-1-4-1994 and contended that the endorsed invoices along with the supplier's own invoices made them eligible for Modvat credit. The appellant sought a remand based on discrepancies in the documents and cited various Tribunal decisions supporting the validity of endorsed invoices for Modvat credit.

3. The Respondent's representative emphasized the change in the law effective from 1-4-1994 and supported the lower authorities' decision to deny the credit. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation, 1991.

4. The Tribunal noted that the invoices issued by M/s. Dalhousie Udyog post the procedural change did not meet the requirements specified under Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.) and Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.). The invoices contained discrepancies such as incorrect references and missing particulars, rendering them ineligible for Modvat credit.

5. Referring to the Supreme Court's stance on procedural compliance to prevent fraud and administrative inconvenience, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed invoice requirements post the procedural change on 1-4-1994.

6. After careful consideration, the Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) that the Modvat credit had been improperly claimed using inadequate documents. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the decision that the discrepancies in the invoices issued by M/s. Dalhousie Udyog post the procedural change rendered the Modvat credit inadmissible.

7. The duty amount involved in the case was Rs. 98,923.36, and considering all relevant facts, the Tribunal affirmed the denial of Modvat credit due to improper documentation, leading to the rejection of the appeal.