1998 (6) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Availing Modvat credit without mentioning mode of transport and motor vehicle numbers in invoices.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the availing of Modvat credit by the respondents without mentioning the mode of transport and motor vehicle numbers in the invoices. The Revenue contended that these omissions were crucial as per Central Excise Rules, rendering the invoices invalid for claiming Modvat credit. The Asstt. Commissioner had initially dropped the show cause notice, considering the omissions as minor procedural lapses. However, the Revenue appealed against this decision.

The Revenue argued that the prescribed particulars for invoices, including mode of transport and motor vehicle registration numbers, were not present in the invoices used by the respondents to claim Modvat credit. They asserted that such omissions made the invoices invalid for availing the credit, urging for disallowance of the credit and setting aside of the previous order.

On the other hand, the respondent's representative contended that these omissions were minor procedural lapses and should not lead to the denial of substantive Modvat credit benefits. They emphasized that the fault lay with the supplier of the inputs and not with the respondents. Additionally, they pointed out that the goods receipt accompanying the invoices contained the required details, such as the motor vehicle number, and argued that the appeal should be dismissed.

After considering both arguments, the judge emphasized the importance of mentioning the mode of transport in invoices for effective revenue oversight during goods transportation. The judge disagreed with the view that omitting the mode of transport was a minor procedural lapse, stating that it raised doubts about the receipt of materials by the respondents. The judge also noted the lack of correlation between the invoices and the goods receipts provided by the respondents, highlighting the absence of cross-references between the documents. Consequently, the judge concluded that the respondents were not entitled to the Modvat credit in this case, setting aside the previous order and disallowing the credit, thereby allowing the Revenue's appeal.