2000 (9) TMI 445 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Modvat credit by Assistant Commissioner
2. Confirmation of disallowance by Commissioner (Appeals)
3. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order

Issue 1: Disallowance of Modvat credit by Assistant Commissioner
The case involved M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Corporation importing Melamine and endorsing the Bill of Entry to their Zonal Office at Bombay. The invoice was issued to M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Corporation, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi under Rule 57GG. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 28,101.60 to the appellants on the ground that the Bombay Zonal Office of the supplier was not registered with the Central Excise department. The Assistant Commissioner held that invoices issued by unregistered persons were not valid under Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), leading to the denial of credit to the appellants.

Issue 2: Confirmation of disallowance by Commissioner (Appeals)
The Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad, confirmed the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and rejected the appeal of the party. The Commissioner upheld the decision that the invoice issued by the GSPC office at Bombay was not a proper document, thereby supporting the disallowance of Modvat credit to the appellants.

Issue 3: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order
The appeal was made against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant had availed Modvat credit based on invoices issued by a dealer registered under Rule 57GG. The appellant argued that as long as they availed the credit on admissible documents under the rules, they should not be denied the benefit based on the actions of another unregistered dealer in the supply chain. The appellant contended that they had no means to verify the registration status of the dealer who passed on the credit, and thus, should not be penalized for it. The judge found merit in the appellant's arguments and set aside the order of the lower Appellate authority, allowing the appeal and granting the Modvat credit to the appellants.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants due to the registration status of the supplier's Zonal Office. The judge ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that as long as the credit was availed based on valid documents, the appellants should not be penalized for the actions of other dealers in the supply chain. The judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring that parties directly involved in any discrepancies should be made part of the proceedings to present their case before any decision is taken.