2000 (5) TMI 705 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing Modvat credit based on improper document under Rule 57C of Central Excise Rules.
2. Discrepancy in address on the Bill of Entry for availing Modvat credit.
3. Validity of impugned order passed without considering detailed reasons and without hearing the Respondent.
4. Variation in signature on Rule 57A declaration.
5. Compliance with circular dated 29-2-1996 regarding availing credit at the factory.

Issue 1:
The appellant availed Modvat credit based on a document that did not comply with Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules. The show-cause notice was issued to the appellant to explain why the credit should not be recovered under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A(1) and why a penalty should not be imposed under Rule 173Q. The Assistant Collector initially dropped the demand, but the department appealed, and the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the appeal. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that the technical ground of improper document should not be a reason to deny the credit.

Issue 2:
There was a discrepancy in the address provided on the Bill of Entry for availing Modvat credit. The appellant's premises were registered at a different address from the one mentioned on the document. The appellant argued that the address discrepancy should not be sufficient to deny the credit, as the document clearly indicated the factory address where the inputs were received and used to avail Modvat credit.

Issue 3:
The validity of the impugned order was questioned as it was passed without considering detailed reasons and without hearing the Respondent. The order was deemed a non-speaking order, not in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and unable to withstand quasi-judicial scrutiny. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Issue 4:
The variation in signature on the Rule 57A declaration was raised as a point of contention. The appellant explained that the declaration was signed by another officer on behalf of the Assistant Collector, which was accepted by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The variation in signature was not deemed sufficient to warrant a denial of the Modvat credit.

Issue 5:
The compliance with a circular dated 29-2-1996 regarding availing credit at the factory was discussed. The appellant argued that the Bill of Entry contained addresses of both the office and factory, with a clear declaration indicating the factory address where the credit was to be availed. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for not examining this document in detail, leading to the conclusion that the Modvat credit should not be denied. Consequently, the point raised was answered in the affirmative, and the impugned order was set aside, with the appeal allowed and consequential relief granted according to law.