1998 (8) TMI 279 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Modvat credit denial based on absence of printed serial numbers on invoices issued by a dealer as per Rule 57GG of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 24,090 due to the absence of printed serial numbers on invoices issued by a dealer, as required by sub-rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant argued that the duty paid character of the goods was not in question, and the absence of printed serial numbers was a procedural lapse that should not disentitle them from claiming the Modvat credit. The appellant contended that the relevant notification did not explicitly require printed serial numbers, only the details as prescribed under Rule 57GG. On the other hand, the respondent argued that Rule 57GG is a statutory rule, and sub-rule (5) explicitly mandates that each invoice must bear printed serial numbers for the entire financial year. The respondent emphasized that the absence of printed serial numbers could lead to manipulation and jeopardize government revenue. The respondent asserted that the provisions of Rule 57GG would prevail over any conflicting provisions in the notification when read together.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, sided with the respondent's position. The Tribunal noted that the notification specifying the documents required for claiming Modvat credit explicitly referenced Rule 57GG, indicating its importance. The Tribunal highlighted that sub-rule (5) of Rule 57GG specifically mandated the presence of printed serial numbers on invoices, which was lacking in the appellant's case. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the absence of printed serial numbers was a mere procedural lapse, emphasizing that it was a fundamental requirement under the Modvat Scheme. The Tribunal distinguished previous judgments where procedural infractions were overlooked, as those cases did not involve the specific issue of printed serial numbers as required by Rule 57GG. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's appeal and upheld the denial of Modvat credit. The appeal was dismissed, and the Stay Petition was also disposed of accordingly.