9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 85, dated 9-6-1994 and another amount of Rs. 625/- was involved in the credit taken on the basis of Invoice No. 871, dated 8-7-1994. The credit so taken, totalling to Rs. 57,825/-, was disallowed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in adjudication of the show cause notice issued earlier to the party under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules. In the appeal filed by the party against this order of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) concurred with the findings of the lower authority and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. I have carefully examined the orders of both the lower authorities and connected records of the case. I have also hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strength of Bill Nos. 83 and 85 was that no evidence had been adduced by the party to show as to whether the suppliers of the goods were wholesale dealers or distributors of the manufacturer. On the other hand, the order of the Assistant Commissioner disallowing the Modvat credit was based on his finding that the number of the master invoice issued by the manufacturer was wrongly entered on the bills issued by the suppliers of the goods. Therefore, the learned Advocate argues, the finding of the Assistant Commissioner is beyond the scope of the show cause notice and hence unsustainable in law. As regards the Modvat credit taken on the basis of Invoice No. 871, dated 8-7-1994 issued by M/s. Anil Alums (Dealers), the adjudicating authority h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al s decision on the subject. He has particularly drawn my attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of National Engineering Industries Limited v. C.C.E. [1996 (88) E.L.T. 62 (T)] wherein the Tribunal had held that the benefit of Modvat Scheme should not be denied to an assessee on the mere ground of procedural irregularity when there was substantial compliance with the requirements of law. Drawing support from this decision of the Tribunal, the learned Advocate submits that a mistaken entry of number of the master invoice in the bills issued by the supplier of the goods is a minor procedural defect which cannot constitute a valid ground for the denial of the substantive benefit of Modvat Scheme, in the light of the above case l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
