Excise invoice Serial number needs to be printed, Central Excise

[SANDESH SHINDE]

Dear Sir,

Is it necessary that Excise invoice serial number needs to be printed in case of hand written invoice or hand written invoice no can do, please explain, please give us any references regarding this,thanks and regards.

Posts / Replies

[PAWAN KUMAR]

Dear Sir,

On invoice stationery being prepared manually by hand writing, serial number can be either preprinted or franking machine numbered. Not to put serial number by hand writing. Please read the chapter 4 "INVOICE SYSTEM" OF CENTRAL EXCISE MANUAL OF MR.R.K.JAIN.

[Rajagopalan Ranganathan]

Dear Shinde,

Para 3.2 of Chapter 4 of CBEC's manual of Instructions states that-

"3.2 .The serial number can be given at the time of printing or by using franking machine. But when the invoice book is authenticated in the manner specified in sub-rule (5) of rule 11, each foil of the invoice book should contain serial number before being brought into use. Hand written serial number shall not be accepted."

Therefore hand-written serial numbers of invoices is not acceptable. The serial numbers shall be either pre-printed or may be printed with franking machine. Only these two methods are premissible under law.

[Pradeep Khatri]

Dear Sandesh/Pawan/Rajagopalan,

This is for your kind information and knowledge enrichment.

Even hand written invoice nos. are valid. There is a favorable judgment in this matter also. Further, Rule 11(2) specify that the invoice shall be serially numbered and ¹[shall contain the registration number, address of the concerned Central Excise division,] name of the consignee, description, classification, time and date of removal, mode of transport and vehicle registration number, rate of duty, quantity and value, of goods and the duty payable thereon. Rule 11(2) nowhere mentions that Invoice Nos. must be pre-printed etc.

We are providing you with the settled legal position pertaining to your query. C.E. Manual has no relevance after this settled legal position.

Pre-Authentication of Invoices

Vide Notification No. 5/2010-C.E. (N.T.) dated 27-02-2010 Rule 11 (5) has been omitted.

TMI ID= 226176

2013 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Other Citation: 2013 (293) E.L.T. 44 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

Sanathan Textiles P. Ltd. Versus CCE, Vapi

Cenvat credit admissibility on the basis of invoice on which serial number is hand-written - Held that:- There is no dispute that the inputs were duty paid and duly received by the appellant and used in the manufacture of excisable goods. If there was any discrepancy, the same could have been verified from the suppliers end by the jurisdictional Central Excise officers. The appellant has got such a certificate from the supplier of the inputs with a certification of the jurisdictional Superintendent confirming that the invoices stated in the letter dated 10/10/2011 of the supplier are checked from the records. This argument was taken up by the appellant before the original adjudicating authority, but no findings were given by the lower authority as to why verification made by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority of the supplier cannot be accepted. The judgment of the Commissioner, Central Excise vs. Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (7) TMI 257 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT], relied upon by the A.R. is not applicable because the same was pronounced with respect to Rule 57G of the earlier Central Excise Rules, 1944 when there was a specific obligation under Rules 52A to have serially printed invoices. It is once again emphasized that substantial benefit cannot be denied to the assessee on the basis of procedural irregularity when under the new Central Excise Rule 11, there is no obligation of printed serial number on the invoices. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is allowed.

No. - E/792/12

Order No. - 10469/2013-WZB/AHD

Dated - March 26, 2013

Mr. H.K. Thakur, J. For the Appellant: Shri W. Christian (Adv.) For the Respondent : Shri K. Sivkumar (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: H. K. Thakur: 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against Order in Appeal NO.SRP/17/VAPI/2012-13 dated 13/09/12 under which the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. The issue involved in this case is whether cenvat credit is admissible on the basis of invoice on which serial number is hand-written. 2.The ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that as per erstwhile Rule 52 A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, each invoice was required to bear a printed Sr.No. It was argued that as per Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, there is no such requirement of specific mention of printed serial number on the invoice. In order to clear the doubt, the appellant produced a letter dated 10/05/2010 from the supplier of goods duly countersigned by the jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent to the effect that invoice numbers under which credit is taken were issued after discharge of central excise duty. The ld. Counsel also argued that as per Central Excise Rules, if there was any discrepancy in the documents, the same can be rectified by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority by making a reference to his counter-part. In support of his case, he relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-II[2012 (284) ELT 514 (Tri.-Mumbai.)]. 3. The ld. A.R. on the other hand relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (234) ELT 245 (H.P.)]. 4. Heard both the sides. The only issue which is required to be decided is whether the invoice on which serial number is hand-written can be considered as proper document issued under Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The said rule is reproduced below: Rule 11(2):The invoice shall be serially numbered and [shall contain the registration number, address of the concerned Central Excise Division] name of the consignee, description, classification, time and date of removal, mode of transport and vehicle registration number, rate of duty, quantity and value of goods and the duty payable thereon. 5. It is evident from the wording of Rule 11(2) above, that invoice shall be serially numbered. However, under the earlier Rule 52(A)(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, there was a clear cut specification that each invoice shall bear a printed serial number. The appellant has, therefore, correctly made out the point that under existing Central Excise Rules, there is no requirement that the invoice should bear printed serial number only. It is an accepted legal position that substantial benefit should not be denied to the assessee simply on procedural discrepancies. In the present case, there is no dispute that the inputs were duty paid and duly received by the appellant and used in the manufacture of excisable goods. If there was any discrepancy, the same could have been verified from the suppliers end by the jurisdictional Central Excise officers. In the present case the appellant has got such a certificate from the supplier of the inputs with a certification of the jurisdictional Superintendent confirming that the invoices stated in the letter dated 10/10/2011 of the supplier are checked from the records. This argument was taken up by the appellant before the original adjudicating authority, but no findings were given by the lower authority as to why verification made by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority of the supplier cannot be accepted. The judgment of the Commissioner, Central Excise vs. Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (234) ELT 245 (H.P.)], relied upon by the ld. A.R. is not applicable because the same was pronounced with respect to Rule 57G of the earlier Central Excise Rules, 1944 when there was a specific obligation under Rules 52A to have serially printed invoices. It is once again emphasized that substantial benefit cannot be denied to the assessee on the basis of procedural irregularity when under the new Central Excise Rule 11, there is no obligation of printed serial number on the invoices. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is allowed by setting aside the order in appeal dated 30/09/2010 passed by the Commissioner (A). (Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court). Neelam Taneja (Executive Consultant) YAGAY and SUN (Management, Business and Indirect Tax Consultants)

[PAWAN KUMAR]

Dear Pradeep Ji,

Is there any supreme court decision on the matter. If not, case is not the basis of working. Only the rules and procedures prescribed by the CBEC is valid for smooth working and compliances for the law. As per my view, no such allowance in the law to hand written serial number on invoices.

[kailash singhal]

d/s

fine some case laws / circular did not made compulsorily to put invoice serial number to be pre printed or to be put by franking machine numbered----------- but the effect will be accumulative when one mistake found in RG-1 bout cutting of invoice number or qty manufactured or qty cleared and also this mistake will be accumulative when qty details does not tall with qty shown in balance sheet / 3cd report and qty shown in RG-1 and RG 23 part I/II without supporting the entry of stock valuation of goods item wise and work in progress for last few years

regards

cs kc singhal

9824102121

[kailash singhal]

d/s

author is ca not cs

regards

kc singhal

[Pradeep Khatri]

Dear All,

We had shared with you people the settled legal position which have attained the finality, since Department had not filed any appeal against the order in the matter of Sanathan Textiles P. Ltd. Versus CCE, Vapi . If you are still in doubt, then, you can get clarification from CBEC and TRU.

Regards,

Neelam Taneja - Executive Consultant

YAGAY and SUN)

Management, Business and Indirect Tax Consultants

[Naveed S]

Hand written serial numbers should always be avoided, as it can arise suspicion in the minds of the revenue officer, especially if any change/rectification is made on the invoice numbers

[MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN]

Thanks for all.