2006 (8) TMI 61 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat- Supplementary invoices is issued by assessee for availing Modvat credit Assessee should have followed proper procedure for filing refund claim with lower authorities.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of credit in PLA and RG-23A Part II on supplementary invoices
- Validity of demand and penalty imposed by lower authorities
- Applicability of Section 11B for refund claim
- Proper procedure for availing credit and refund
- Jurisdiction to issue show cause notice

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order confirming demand and penalty for availing credit in PLA and RG-23A Part II on self-issued supplementary invoices. The appellant claimed the duty was overpaid and sought a refund, arguing that the demand notice was invalid and Section 11B did not apply. The Tribunal noted the procedural requirements for availing credit, emphasizing the need for TR-6 Challan for PLA credit as per Rule 173G. It dismissed the appellant's argument of being eligible for refund without following proper refund claim procedures. Regarding RG-23A Part II credit, the Tribunal highlighted Rule 57G, stating self-issued invoices were not valid for Modvat credit.

The Tribunal addressed the appellant's contention on the validity of the demand notice, citing the Commissioner's observation that a revised show cause notice supersedes the previous one. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the authority's power to issue, amend, or withdraw show cause notices. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's argument against the validity of the demand notice, stating it was in line with established legal principles.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the proper procedures for availing credit and refund claims. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld based on the legal principles and precedents cited in the judgment. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court, reaffirming the dismissal of the appeal on 31-8-2006 after considering all arguments presented.