Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (1) TMI 644

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... LSHS amounting to Rs. 37,909.00, totalling to Rs. 43,932.00. The Department alleged that the credits were wrongly taken on the strength of invalid documents. The credit on sulphuric acid (manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. and supplied to the appellants by M/s. Sunny Trading Corporation, the dealers of the manufacturers) was taken on the strength of endorsed invoices of M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. as well as invoices issued by the dealer subsequent to delivery of the goods. The Department alleged that neither the endorsed invoices of the input-manufacturer nor the invoices of the dealer were proper and valid duty-paying documents for the purpose of availment of credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The dealer s invoices .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s by the input-manufacturers. From 1-4-1994, the corresponding documents are the duplicate for transporter copies of invoices issued under Rule 52A (as amended) by the input-manufacturers. Ld. Advocate submits that for some time during the transitional period, M/s. IOC used to issue their invoices in the form of delivery challans under Rule 52A by making use of their old stationery. In other words, the printed format of the carrier copy of gate pass was used for the purpose of invoice under Rule 52A for certain period after 1-4-1994. The delivery challans of M/s. IOC, on the strength of which Modvat credit was taken by the appellants on LSHS, were issued in June, 1994 in this manner. Ld. Counsel submits that such documents were valid du .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l submits, was only consequent to Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994. But the Modvat credit in question was taken before 4-7-1994. Therefore, according to ld. Advocate, there was no legal hitch in taking credit on the strength of the invoices issued by M/s. Sunny Trading Co. Ld. Advocate has also relied on the Tribunal s decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise Customs v. Amal Rasayan Ltd. [1993 (68) E.L.T. 446] in support of his submission that it was not necessary that the inputs supplied by the dealer should be accompanied by his invoice. According to him, the invoice could be issued subsequently also. In this context, ld. Advocate has also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Garha Gears Ltd. v. CCE, In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal) = 2000 (36) RLT 666]. On the admissibility of dealer s invoices, ld. DR submits that the said invoices were issued subsequent to the date on which the credit was taken. In other words, as on the date of taking credit, those invoices did not exist. In this view of the matter, according to ld. DR, the entire credit taken on sulphuric acid is not available to the appellants. He, therefore, prays for rejecting the appeal. 4. I have carefully examined the rival submissions. On the issue whether the credit taken on LSHS was admissible to the appellants, I find, the credit was taken on delivery challans issued by the input-manufacturers namely M/s. IOC under Rule 52A. Those delivery challans were issued in the format of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o them. 5. As regards the credit taken on sulphuric acid, I find that the position is quite different. As rightly pointed out by ld. JDR, endorsed invoices issued after 1-4-1994 are not valid duty-paying documents for the purpose of availment of inputs-credit as held by the Tribunal s Larger Bench in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. (supra). The invoices issued by the dealer subsequent to the date on which the credit was taken also cannot be acceptable documents for the simple reason that those invoices were not in existence at the time of taking of the credit. This view can claim support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amal Rasayan Ltd. (supra) cited by ld. Advocate. The Tribunal in that case, referring to a Circular of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates