1999 (2) TMI 203 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Modvat credit availed on gate pass/subsidiary certificate issued/endorsed after 1-4-1994.
2. Credit availed other than duplicate copy of invoice.
3. Invoices not pre-authenticated.
4. Invoices not having pre-printed serial number.
5. Credit availed on the strength of certificate issued by Public Sector Undertakings/canalising agency like MMTC/STC.
6. Invoices issued by dealer not having godown.
7. Invoices not in the name of appellant.
8. Sale in transit.
9. Invoices not marked 'duplicate for transporter'.
10. Invoices not issued by dealer.
11. Invoices issued from a godown which is not mentioned in the registration certificates.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Modvat credit availed on gate pass/subsidiary certificate issued/endorsed after 1-4-1994:
The appeals involved the denial of Modvat credit due to technical deficiencies in the Modvatable invoices. The legal position on these issues is well settled by the judgments of the Tribunal, and the appeals were disposed of without personal hearings. The Commissioner relied on precedents such as Galaxy (FRP) P. Ltd. v. Collector, CEX, Delhi - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 101 (Tri.) and D.R.G. Leather Cloth (P) Ltd. - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 374 (Commr. Appl.).

2. Credit availed other than duplicate copy of invoice:
The Commissioner referred to cases like Jenny Plywood Inds v. C.C.E., Shillong - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 606 (Tri.) and Burns Philp India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta-IV - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 758 (Tri.) = 1998 (25) RLT 401 (CEGAT), stating that credit availed on the original copy of the invoice was permissible during the transitional period up to 31-12-1994.

3. Invoices not pre-authenticated:
The Commissioner cited Jenny Plywood Inds. v. C.C.E., Shillong - 1997(96) E.L.T. 606 (Tri.) and Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta-I - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 489 (T) = 1998 (25) RLT 293 (CEGAT) to support the argument that non-pre-authenticated invoices should be considered a minor technical deficiency.

4. Invoices not having pre-printed serial number:
The Commissioner noted that as per Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 49, 'printed' also includes various forms of reproduction, and Trade Notice No. 74/95, dated 8-11-1995, supported this interpretation.

5. Credit availed on the strength of certificate issued by Public Sector Undertakings/canalising agency like MMTC/STC:
The Commissioner referred to Agarwal Metal Works v. C.C.E., New Delhi - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 654 (Tri.), which validated such certificates as duty-paying documents.

6. Invoices issued by dealer not having godown:
The Commissioner cited Eveready Inds. India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad 1997 (89) E.L.T. 180 (Tri.), which supported the acceptance of such invoices.

7. Invoices not in the name of appellant:
The Commissioner referred to Crop. Health Products Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 376 (Tri.) 1998 (25) RLT 413 (CEGAT) and Gufic Chem. Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Belgaum - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 119 (Tri.) = 1997 (20) RLT 902 (CEGAT-SZB), which allowed for the acceptance of such invoices.

8. Sale in transit:
The Commissioner cited Eveready Inds. India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 180 (Tribunal) to support the acceptance of invoices marked for sale in transit.

9. Invoices not marked 'duplicate for transporter':
The Commissioner referred to Shri Durga Glass Ltd. reported in 1998 (24) RLT 420 (CEGAT), which allowed for the acceptance of such invoices.

10. Invoices not issued by dealer:
The Commissioner cited Pearl Inds. v. C.C.E., Raipur - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 745 (Tri.) and C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Sri Vinayaka Alloys (P) Ltd. - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 354 (Tri.), which supported the acceptance of such invoices.

11. Invoices issued from a godown which is not mentioned in the registration certificates:
The Commissioner referred to Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. v. C.C.E., Culcutta-I - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 489 (Tri.) = 1998 (25) RLT 293 (CEGAT) and Eveready Inds. India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 180 (Tri.), which allowed for the acceptance of such invoices.

Conclusion:
The Commissioner concluded that the substantive benefit under the law should not be denied due to procedural infirmities. The receipt and utilization of materials were not in question, and the duties were discharged on the subject inputs. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside. The Commissioner emphasized that the procedural deficiencies were minor and did not warrant the denial of Modvat credit.

← Previous Next →