1999 (12) TMI 355 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Modvat credit allowance based on disputed invoices.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order confirming Modvat credit to the respondents based on disputed invoices. The respondents claimed Modvat credit on invoices totaling Rs. 90,868.40 for manufacturing D.C. Micrometers and Tape Deck Mechanism falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue alleged that the invoices used by the respondents were not valid under the law. However, the Assistant Commissioner accepted the validity of the invoices after verifying them and confirming the receipt of goods by the respondents. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings against the respondents. The Revenue then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision.

The main contention raised against the order in appeal was that the invoices lacked transport details, such as mode of transport and vehicle registration number, making them invalid for Modvat credit. However, the Tribunal found this argument to be misconceived. The Assistant Commissioner had already verified the correctness and validity of the invoices and accepted the collateral evidence provided by the respondents. The respondents had also submitted Form 31 issued by Sales Tax Authorities with full details. The invoices were issued under Rule 52-A of the Central Excise Rules, and the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied with the receipt and use of the goods by the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed these findings. There was no evidence to suggest that the goods covered by the invoices were not received by the respondents or that Modvat credit could not be legally claimed. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was valid in allowing Modvat credit based on the disputed invoices.

In light of the discussion and findings, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, stating that there was no merit in challenging the allowance of Modvat credit to the respondents based on the disputed invoices.