1998 (8) TMI 400 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of Modvat credit based on invoices with deficiencies.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the admissibility of Modvat credit based on invoices with deficiencies. The show cause notice alleged that certain deficiencies in the invoices rendered them ineligible documents for claiming credit. The objections included missing information such as unit of quantity, date and time of issue/removal, value of manufacturer/supplier, tariff classification, and more.

2. The Deputy Commissioner upheld the allegation, stating that the invoices did not contain essential information required by the Notification No. 33/94. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that the documents issued in two parts lacked continuity and did not bear the authority under which they were issued, thus not qualifying as proper documents for Modvat credit.

3. The appellant's advocate argued that the two parts of the invoice were related, with the second part referring to the first sheet, indicating a connection between them. Upon review, it was found that when both parts were read together, some objections regarding missing details were addressed in the second part of the invoices.

4. It was suggested that both parts of the invoices were available to the assessing authorities during scrutiny, and the lower authorities discussed both parts without any discrepancies. Therefore, it was accepted that both parts were accessible for assessment purposes.

5. Upon a comprehensive review of the invoices, it was noted that certain objections related to missing details were resolved when both parts were considered together, indicating the presence of required information in the second part.

6. The issue of the mode of transport not being shown in the invoices was raised, citing conflicting judgments. However, it was concluded that the absence of this detail did not disqualify the assessee, especially when the required information was present in some invoices.

7. Regarding the objection about the wording "Duplicate for transporter" not being printed, it was determined that the relevant rule did not mandate printing but required marking, thus dismissing this objection.

8. The objection concerning the absence of the invoice number being printed on the invoice was discussed in relation to Rule 57GG, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the sub-rules and the implications of non-compliance on the eligibility of the document.

9. The judgment highlighted the significance of compliance with Rule 57GG, particularly regarding printed serial numbers running for the entire year, emphasizing that failure to adhere to these provisions would render the invoice ineligible for claiming credit.

10. The allegation regarding the absence of quantity being shown in the invoices was addressed, noting that while this defect alone might not disqualify the claim, in conjunction with other deficiencies, it supported the denial of credit as upheld in the impugned order.