2000 (3) TMI 667 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit due to discrepancies in the invoice.
2. Denial of Modvat credit for using the original invoice instead of the duplicate one.
3. Denial of Modvat credit for inputs not declared in the declaration under Rule 57G.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's Modvat credit was denied due to discrepancies in the invoice, specifically regarding different invoice numbers and lack of exact particulars. The consultant argued that the discrepancy should not hinder credit availing. The judge agreed, stating that as long as there was no allegation of non-receipt of inputs or non-duty paid inputs, the discrepancy should not prevent Modvat credit.

2. Another part of the credit was denied for using the original invoice instead of a duplicate one. The consultant cited Tribunal decisions supporting their stance that as long as the duty-paid character of inputs is not doubted, Modvat credit should not be denied based on using the original invoice.

3. The denial of Modvat credit for certain inputs not declared in the Rule 57G declaration was contested by the appellant. They explained that the inputs were equivalent to those declared, despite different brand names. The judge found merit in the appellant's explanation, noting that the Tariff Headings matched and minor discrepancies in declarations should not lead to credit denial.

4. The JDR opposed the appellant's contentions, emphasizing that the inputs were not specifically declared by name in the declaration. However, the judge sided with the appellant, noting that the goods were the same despite different brand names, and the Tariff Headings aligned with the declaration. Consequently, the judge set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential reliefs to the appellants, thereby disposing of the Stay Petition.