1999 (12) TMI 248 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Modvat credit by the Assistant Commissioner.
2. Disallowance of Modvat credit based on clerical mistake.
3. Non-speaking order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).
4. Sustainability of disallowance of Modvat credit in light of Tribunal's decision.
5. Denial of natural justice by the Assistant Commissioner.
6. Unsustainability of orders of lower authorities.

Analysis:

1. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 57,200/- and Rs. 625/- taken by the appellants on Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB) as inputs. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. The appeal before the Tribunal challenged these decisions.

2. The learned Advocate argued that the disallowance was based on a clerical mistake in the master invoice numbers entered on the bills. The mistake was not notified in the show cause notice, denying the appellants a chance to rectify it. The Assistant Commissioner's finding went beyond the notice's scope, making it unsustainable.

3. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) passed a non-speaking order, failing to address the issues raised. The order merely stated a lack of manufacturer's particulars on the supplier's invoice without providing any reasoning. This non-speaking order was deemed unacceptable.

4. Citing a Tribunal decision, the Advocate contended that procedural irregularities should not deny Modvat benefits if there was substantial compliance with the law. The clerical mistake was considered a minor procedural defect that should not invalidate the Modvat credit claim.

5. The Assistant Commissioner's denial of Modvat credit without allowing the party to rectify any defects in the documents was seen as a denial of natural justice. The failure to provide an opportunity to cure any issues before making a decision was deemed unfair.

6. After examining the submissions and case law, the Tribunal found the orders of both lower authorities unsustainable. The Assistant Commissioner's decision went beyond the show cause notice, denying natural justice. The non-speaking order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was also insufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside both orders and allowed the appeal, granting consequential benefits to the appellants.