2000 (5) TMI 325 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of Modvat credit by Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division-I Ghaziabad.

Analysis:
1. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,88,652/- to the appellants for various reasons. These reasons included obtaining Modvat credit on a duplicate copy of Bill of Entry instead of the admissible triplicate copy, endorsement of triplicate copy of Bill of Entry in the name of the party without highsea sales, lack of original or attested Modvat documents, and handwritten "Transporter copy" on certain documents.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of credit on endorsed invoices and for failure to produce original or attested copies of documents. However, the Commissioner allowed the credit where the duplicate copy of the invoice did not bear the pre-printed word "duplicate for transporter." The appellants appealed against this decision.

3. During the appeal hearing, the appellant's advocate cited legal precedents to support their case. These included the case of M/s. Nicco Corporation Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (22) RLT 607 (CEGAT), which allowed credit based on an attested copy of the Bill of Entry in case of loss of triplicate copy, and the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Maharaja International Ltd. 1998 (103) E.L.T. 426 (T), where Modvat credit was allowed based on a photocopy of the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry.

4. The judge considered the submissions and noted that the documents on which the Modvat credit was claimed were seized by the Income Tax department. The appellant obtained attested copies of the modvatable documents from the Income Tax Authority and submitted them to the department. The judge found the ground for denying Modvat credit based on endorsement to be invalid and ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them a waiver of the entire confirmed amount against them.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal of the appellants, granting them a waiver of the disallowed Modvat credit amount based on the invalid grounds cited by the Assistant Commissioner. The judgment emphasized the importance of valid documentation and legal precedents in determining the eligibility for Modvat credit in excise matters.