1997 (7) TMI 432 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the appellant.
2. Non-consideration of circular by the Commissioner in denying Modvat credit.
3. Denial of Modvat credit on grounds of missing particulars in the invoice.
4. Interpretation of Rule 52A(7) and Notification 33/94 regarding pre-authenticated invoices.
5. Appeal for remand to adjudicating authority for a decision based on arguments presented.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) denying Modvat credit of Rs. 8,04,670.05. The appellant's advocate argued that the issue should have been assessed considering a circular of the Board dated 6-11-1994. The Commissioner did not consider this circular, leading to non-application of mind. The advocate requested a remand to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision based on the circular and arguments presented.

2. Another aspect of the appeal involved the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,17,102.05 due to missing particulars in the supplier's invoice. The appellant contended that the required particulars were indeed present in the supplier's invoice, which the Commissioner failed to acknowledge. The advocate highlighted the Commissioner's lack of scrutiny in this regard and sought a remand for a decision based on the provided arguments.

3. The department's representative argued that Rule 52A(7) and Notification 33/94 mandated pre-authenticated invoices for Modvat credit eligibility. The representative supported the adjudicating authority's decision, asserting compliance with the law.

4. In response, the appellant's advocate presented a certified document to the Commissioner, confirming the payment of excise duty under the relevant invoice and countersigned by the Superintendent of Central Excise Range. This document aimed to support the appellant's claim for Modvat credit.

5. Considering the submissions from both parties, the Tribunal noted the issuance of Circular No. 76/76/94-CX on 6-11-1994 to address trade difficulties during the transitional period. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering such circulars for decision-making. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) to reevaluate the case in light of Circular No. 76/76/94-CX, emphasizing the need to address trade challenges effectively.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues raised in the judgment and the arguments presented by the parties, leading to the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment based on relevant circulars and arguments.