1997 (6) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Modvat credit disallowed due to hand-written "duplicate for transporters" on invoice.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the disallowance of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 46,800/- to the appellants because the "duplicate for transporters" on the invoice was hand-written after deleting the pre-printed words "extra copy." The consultant for the appellants argued that the procedures in September 1994 were unclear, and there was no requirement in the law for the term to be pre-printed. He cited various tribunal decisions to support his stance. On the other hand, the SDR contended that the invoices should be pre-printed as per Rule 57G and cutting the word "extra" and substituting it with "duplicate for transporters" could lead to complications and pose a risk to revenue. He relied on tribunal decisions emphasizing the importance of duty-paying documents. The judge considered both arguments and examined the evidence provided by the manufacturers of the inputs, who clarified that the "duplicate for transporters" was missing in their printed invoices and no separate copy was issued. The judge found that the law only required clear marking of invoices as "original," "duplicate for transporters," etc., without the necessity of pre-printing these terms. The judge distinguished the cases cited by the SDR, noting the absence of a risk to revenue in the current scenario. The judge emphasized that substantial benefits of the law should not be denied due to procedural lapses and allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for verification by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Rule 57G and Rule 57A regarding the marking of invoices and the requirement of pre-printing specific terms. It highlights the importance of substantive benefits not being denied due to procedural irregularities. The judge's analysis focuses on the absence of risk to revenue in the current scenario and the specific facts of the case, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal and remand for further verification. The judgment provides a detailed examination of the arguments presented by both parties and references relevant tribunal decisions to support the final decision.