2000 (12) TMI 744 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit due to invoices marked 'duplicate for transporter' with a rubber stamp.
2. Denial of Modvat credit due to invoices being in the name of the head office of the appellant.

Issue 1: Denial of Modvat credit due to invoices marked 'duplicate for transporter' with a rubber stamp:
The appellant's Modvat credit was denied by the authorities below because the invoices were marked 'duplicate for transporter' with a rubber stamp instead of being pre-printed. The appellant argued that the marking with a rubber stamp is in compliance with the law as no specific mode of marking was prescribed. The Tribunal cited previous decisions and agreed that the rubber stamp marking is acceptable under the rules. As long as there are no allegations or findings of inputs not being received or utilized, the benefit of Modvat credit cannot be denied on technical grounds.

Issue 2: Denial of Modvat credit due to invoices being in the name of the head office of the appellant:
The second ground for denying Modvat credit was that the invoices were in the name of the appellant's head office. The appellant explained that since the orders were placed by the head office, their address appeared on the invoices. The appellant's central excise authorities verified the invoices and defaced them. The appellant failed to get the invoices endorsed by the head office as they were in the custody of the Revenue. The appellant referred to a Board's Circular stating that credit should not be denied if the entire consignment covered by the invoices is received in the factory in original packed condition. The Commissioner (Appeals) raised concerns about evidence of receipt of inputs in original packed condition, but the Tribunal held that defacing of the invoices by the superintendent indicated receipt of inputs in the factory. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that credit should not be denied based on the name on the invoices when there is no dispute about receiving inputs in the factory.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed all four appeals, emphasizing that the Modvat credit should not be denied based on technical grounds such as the form of marking on invoices or the name on the invoices when there is evidence of receipt and utilization of inputs in the appellant's factory.