1997 (5) TMI 263 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to take credit on an endorsed invoice for excise duty paid on Polyester staple fibre.
2. Whether Reliance Industries can be considered the actual manufacturer of the goods.
3. Whether Emsons Agencies P. Ltd. can be considered a wholesale dealer of Reliance or Terene.
4. Whether procedural requirements for taking credit on excise duty should be waived in this case.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a manufacturing company, received Polyester staple fibre from Terene India Ltd., with an invoice showing excise duty payment to Reliance Industries Ltd. The department contended that taking credit on an endorsed invoice was impermissible. The appellant argued that the invoice was valid under notification 15/94 and that the procedural non-compliance should not prevent credit since duty was paid on the goods received directly.

2. The appellant claimed that Reliance Industries was the actual manufacturer of the goods, utilizing Terene's facilities, and subsequently taking over Terene. However, the department argued that Reliance could not be a wholesale dealer and that the invoices from Reliance, Terene, and Emsons were not acceptable as proof of credit eligibility.

3. The department contended that Reliance could not be considered Terene's wholesale dealer, and Emsons could only be a dealer of Reliance, not Terene. The Board's requirement for a valid document for Modvat credit from a wholesale distributor of the manufacturer was not met in this case.

4. The appellant sought to waive procedural requirements citing past decisions on gate passes as duty paying documents. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the transport documents and invoices, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for claiming credit on excise duty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling against the appellant's claims of credit eligibility based on the endorsed invoice and the argument that Reliance was the actual manufacturer. The Tribunal emphasized the need to comply with procedural requirements and rejected the appellant's request to waive them in this case.