2000 (5) TMI 293 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Modvat credit based on invoices with rubber-stamped words.
2. Requirement of pre-printing of words on invoices for Modvat credit.
3. Validity of computer-generated invoices for Modvat credit.
4. Applicability of Trade Notice No. 5/95-CE.
5. Need for physical examination of invoices in question.
6. Consideration of case law in deciding the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Respondent claimed Modvat credit based on invoices with rubber-stamped words instead of pre-printed ones. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the credit following a Tribunal decision. The Department appealed, arguing the mandatory requirement of pre-printed words for admissibility. The Respondent contended that computer-generated invoices exempted the pre-printing rule. The Tribunal noted the pivotal issue of the invoices' nature and ordered a remand for examination and decision on admissibility based on relevant provisions and case law.

2. The Department argued that pre-printed words on invoices for Modvat credit were mandatory, relying on Trade Notice No. 5/95-CE. The Respondent defended the use of rubber-stamped words on computer-generated invoices, citing exemption under the Trade Notice. The Tribunal emphasized the need for clarity on the nature of the invoices and directed examination to determine admissibility based on rules and precedents.

3. The crux of the dispute was the validity of computer-generated invoices for Modvat credit. The Respondent asserted the admissibility of such invoices under Trade Notice No. 5/95-CE, while the Department insisted on the mandatory pre-printing requirement. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of clarity on the invoice type and ordered a remand for thorough examination and decision based on relevant provisions and Tribunal decisions.

4. The applicability of Trade Notice No. 5/95-CE was crucial in determining the admissibility of the invoices for Modvat credit. The Respondent relied on the Trade Notice to support the exemption from pre-printing requirements on computer-generated invoices. The Tribunal acknowledged this contention but stressed the need for a detailed examination to ascertain the nature of the invoices and make a decision in line with regulations and precedents.

5. The Tribunal noted the absence of a clear record regarding whether the invoices in question were computer-generated. The Respondent claimed the invoices were presented for physical examination but no findings were recorded. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of physical examination and directed the lower authority to thoroughly examine the invoices to determine their admissibility for Modvat credit.

6. In considering the appeal, the Tribunal emphasized the need to address all arguments and case law cited by both parties. The Tribunal ordered a remand for a detailed examination of the invoices, adherence to relevant provisions and Trade Notices, and consideration of all applicable case law before passing a final, well-reasoned decision on the appeal.