9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot given. 2. Date Time of Issue/Removal is not given. 3. Value in Rs. of Manufacturer/Supplier is not given 4. Tariff Classification of Manufacturer/Supplier is not given. 5. D.C. No. is given instead of invoice of Manufacturer/Supplier. 6. Rate/Amount of duty of Manufacturer/Supplier is not given. 7. Mode of Transport with No. 8. `Duplicate for transporter is not printed. 9. Invoice number not printed on invoice. 2. The Deputy Commissioner upheld the allegation on the following observations :- I have also gone through the photocopies of the invoice supplied along with the records and observed that every invoice contains two sheets. First sheet of the every invoice does not reflect anywhere whether it is a duplicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for availing Modvat credit in terms of Notification No. 33/94, dated 4-7-1994. 3. Shri Sunil Tyagi, learned Advocate stated that two parts of the invoice were co-relatable inasmuch as the invoice number was printed on the first page and on the second page. The invoice number and date were reproduced with the phrase with the second part was a part of that invoice. On persual I find that in all invoices the second part does refer to the first-sheet and, therefore, for the purposes of assessing admissibility, the two parts will have to be read together. 4. Shri T.A. Arunachalam suggested that both the parts may not have existed with the Department at the time of scrutiny of RT 12 return. For clarification I asked the learned Advocate to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es these details are not present. Learned Advocate submits that in the proforma prescribed under Rule 57GG these details are not required to be incorporated at all. He further submitted that in the case of Bansiwala Iron Steel Re-rolling Mills this plea did not seem to have been made before the Tribunal. On this count I hold that the ommission in this area did not disqualify the assessee. 7. The objection at Serial No. 8 is that the wording `Duplicate for transporter were not printed. In the case of invoices before me this entry has been made on the top left corner of the second sheet of the invoice. Perusal of the relevant rule namely 57GG as it was at the material time shows that it did not prescribe that the word should be printed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e read together. It has also to be seen that the provisions of the sub-rules are mandatory and not merely procedure where can (sic) be given in their administration. In other words failure to comply with any provisions of the sub-rules will render the invoice as ineligible document. On this count only the charge of the Department is established. 10. At Serial No. 1, the allegation is that quantity is not shown. This is required to be shown in the proforma under Notification No. 33/94. Although this defect by itself may not go to disqualify the claim of the assessee in the present case it will be an additional factor on the observation that the allegations at Serial No. 1 and Serial No. 9 sustain, the denial of the credit made in the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
