2000 (6) TMI 503 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to Modvat credit for inputs received at the factory against an invoice issued in the name of the head office.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata involved the question of whether the appellant was entitled to Modvat credit for inputs received at the factory against an invoice issued in the name of the head office. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed on them. The Tribunal noted that the issue at hand was whether the appellant could claim Modvat credit for inputs received at the factory against an invoice issued in the name of the head office, rather than the factory. The Tribunal decided to take up the appeal for final disposal after dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, considering the issue to be of short compass.

The appellant's representative argued that the mention of the head office in the invoice was a procedural lapse and cited precedents to support their claim. They referred to a decision where it was held that an invoice in the name of a branch office could be considered valid for granting Modvat credit if the inputs were received and utilized in the factory. The representative also cited another decision where it was established that the actual receipt and utilization of goods in the factory, despite the address on the invoice, warranted granting Modvat credit. The appellant's representative contended that these decisions were directly applicable to the case, asserting the appellant's entitlement to Modvat credit for the inputs in question.

On the other hand, the Revenue's representative reiterated the reasoning behind denying the Modvat credit, pointing to a specific Board's Circular outlining conditions for granting Modvat credit in such cases. The Revenue's representative highlighted that the concerned invoice lacked the required endorsement by the head office, as specified in the Circular. They argued that the decisions cited by the appellant's representative did not consider the Circular's requirements and were therefore distinguishable from the present case.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the issuance of the invoice in the name of the head office was a procedural lapse and should not impede the grant of Modvat credit if the inputs were genuinely received and utilized in manufacturing. The Tribunal emphasized that the Modvat scheme aimed to eliminate tax cascading and that procedural lapses without malafides should be overlooked. As long as the inputs were received and utilized for manufacturing without dispute, the Tribunal held that the lack of endorsement on the invoice should be considered a procedural lapse. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the Modvat credit for the inputs in question, disposing of the stay petition and the appeal accordingly.