1998 (8) TMI 384 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether Modvat credit was admissible based on invoices from a person registered as a manufacturer but not as a dealer of excisable goods.

Analysis:

The central issue in the appeals was the admissibility of Modvat credit based on invoices issued by a party registered as a manufacturer but not as a dealer of excisable goods with the Central Excise Department. The department contended that Modvat credit could not be claimed on such invoices as the party was not registered as a dealer. The Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.) was crucial in this matter, specifying that invoices from a dealer of excisable goods registered with the Central Excise Officer could be accepted as duty paying documents for Rule 57G purposes. The department argued that the party in question was registered as a manufacturer, not a dealer, thus disqualifying the invoices for Modvat credit.

The appellant, on the other hand, argued that separate registration as a dealer was not necessary if the party was already registered with the Central Excise Department before the relevant notification. The appellant's counsel emphasized that the registration requirement was primarily for controlling invoice issuers and that existing registration sufficed. Additionally, it was contended that the denial of credit was based on a different notification, No. 33/94-C.E. (NT), exceeding the scope of the Show Cause Notice. The appellant maintained that since the invoices complied with Rule 57GG and the goods were duty paid, Modvat credit should be allowed.

Upon examination, the Tribunal scrutinized Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.) and noted that the key requirement was registration with the Central Excise Department, without specifying registration as a dealer of excisable goods. The Tribunal emphasized the use of the term "or" in the notification, indicating distinct conditions rather than a cumulative requirement. As the party in question was registered with the Central Excise Department, albeit as a manufacturer, the registration sufficed for the notification's purpose. The Tribunal found that the invoices met Rule 57GG criteria, leading to the conclusion that Modvat credit was correctly availed.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, rejecting the appeals. The decision rested on the interpretation of the notification's language and the sufficiency of existing registration with the Central Excise Department, emphasizing compliance with Rule 57GG for invoice details.