1998 (9) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Invoice - Duty paying document - no printed serial no. on invoice - other particulars on the invoice - technical omission or violations - Held that - Regarding the rubber stamping of the duplicate copy of the transporter, the Modvat credit cannot be disallowed as it is a remediable defect and cannot be made the basis for denying the credit. So, also the colour of the invoice in respect of dealers (yellow instead of pink), merely because original duplicate etc. are rubber stamped cannot be disallowed. The manufacturer availing credit cannot be penalised for the lapses on the part of the supplier. - The question of printing does not arise, marking can be made in any manner. - The invoice not bearing the printed serial no. is a technical violation, not such as to disentitle the appellant to Modvat / cenvat credit.

Issues Involved:
1. Invoices not bearing printed serial numbers.
2. Dealer invoices not in pink color and not authenticated by the Range Jurisdictional Superintendent.
3. Invoices from HPCL and BPCL dealers missing pre-printed details.
4. Missing date and time of issue/removal on invoices.
5. Modvat credit availed after six months from invoice date.
6. Credit availed on non-duplicate copy invoices.
7. Credit availed based on Rule 57E certificates for items sent to spare parts department or previously delivered.
8. Credit availed on invoices other than duplicate copy for transporter.
9. Inputs not received with duty-paying documents.
10. Credit availed on items not classified as inputs under Rule 57A.
11. Credit availed on invoices with rubber stamp or handwritten remarks.
12. Credit availed on Nil duty invoices.
13. Credit availed on certificates without consignee name under Rule 57E.
14. Invoices missing payment particulars and original manufacturer details.
15. Excess credit taken due to clerical error.
16. Quantification error.
17. RG 23 Entry/particulars of original manufacturers not mentioned.
18. Credit availed on other copy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Invoices Not Bearing Printed Serial Numbers:
The tribunal found this to be a technical violation and not sufficient to disallow Modvat credit. The decision referenced was R.T. Packaging Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, which held that such technicalities should not disentitle the appellant to Modvat credit.

2. Dealer Invoices Not in Pink Color and Not Authenticated by the Range Jurisdictional Superintendent:
The tribunal ruled that the color of the invoice and the method of authentication (rubber stamp vs. printed) should not affect the eligibility for Modvat credit. The focus should be on the duty-paid nature of the inputs.

3. Invoices from HPCL and BPCL Dealers Missing Pre-Printed Details:
The tribunal held that the absence of pre-printed names, addresses, and registration numbers on invoices from HPCL and BPCL dealers should not disqualify the appellant from Modvat credit, provided the duty-paid nature of the inputs is established.

4. Missing Date and Time of Issue/Removal on Invoices:
The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in isolation but implied that minor procedural lapses should not result in the denial of substantive benefits like Modvat credit.

5. Modvat Credit Availed After Six Months from Invoice Date:
The tribunal did not specifically address this issue, but the overall tone suggests that procedural delays should not negate the right to Modvat credit if the duty-paid nature of the inputs is confirmed.

6. Credit Availed on Non-Duplicate Copy Invoices:
The tribunal ruled that credit should not be disallowed based on the type of invoice copy used, provided the duty-paid nature of the inputs is verified.

7. Credit Availed Based on Rule 57E Certificates for Items Sent to Spare Parts Department or Previously Delivered:
The tribunal did not specifically address this issue but generally ruled in favor of the appellant on procedural grounds, implying that such credits should be allowed if the duty-paid nature is confirmed.

8. Credit Availed on Invoices Other Than Duplicate Copy for Transporter:
The tribunal held that the type of invoice copy should not disqualify the appellant from Modvat credit, focusing instead on the duty-paid nature of the inputs.

9. Inputs Not Received with Duty-Paying Documents:
The tribunal did not specifically address this issue but implied that the duty-paid nature of the inputs is the critical factor, not the accompanying documents.

10. Credit Availed on Items Not Classified as Inputs Under Rule 57A:
The tribunal referenced decisions like Shivaji Works Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, and held that items like steel shots, which are used in the manufacturing process, are eligible for Modvat credit.

11. Credit Availed on Invoices with Rubber Stamp or Handwritten Remarks:
The tribunal ruled that rubber stamps and handwritten remarks should not disqualify the appellant from Modvat credit, as they can provide more accurate verification than printed legends.

12. Credit Availed on Nil Duty Invoices:
The tribunal did not specifically address this issue but generally ruled in favor of the appellant on procedural grounds, implying that such credits should be allowed if the duty-paid nature is confirmed.

13. Credit Availed on Certificates Without Consignee Name Under Rule 57E:
The tribunal ruled that the absence of the consignee name should not disqualify the appellant from Modvat credit if the duty-paid nature of the inputs is confirmed.

14. Invoices Missing Payment Particulars and Original Manufacturer Details:
The tribunal did not specifically address this issue but implied that minor procedural lapses should not result in the denial of substantive benefits like Modvat credit.

15. Excess Credit Taken Due to Clerical Error:
The tribunal did not specifically address this issue but implied that clerical errors should be rectifiable and should not disqualify the appellant from Modvat credit.

16. Quantification Error:
The tribunal did not specifically address this issue but implied that quantification errors should be rectifiable and should not disqualify the appellant from Modvat credit.

17. RG 23 Entry/Particulars of Original Manufacturers Not Mentioned:
The tribunal accepted the appellant's submission of RG 23D entries and set aside the disallowance of Rs. 2,66,005.69 on this ground.

18. Credit Availed on Other Copy:
The tribunal ruled that the type of invoice copy should not disqualify the appellant from Modvat credit, focusing instead on the duty-paid nature of the inputs.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting consequential relief. The focus was on substantive compliance and the duty-paid nature of the inputs rather than procedural lapses.

← Previous Next →