9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-printed Serial Number. All these credits were disallowed by the lower authority as per the impugned order which was passed in adjudication of show-cause notice issued on 2-4-96. A penalty of equal amount was also imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Heard both the sides. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the credit of Rs. 24,39,841/- had been taken on HR (Hot Rolled) Strips supplied by M/s. Indo-Japan Steel Ltd; that the said goods were converted to CR (Cold-Rolled) Strips by the appellants on job work basis; that the CR Strips were cleared, on payment of duty, to M/s. Harbans Lal Malhotra and Sons (for short, M/s. HLMS); that the appellants utilized the Modvat credit taken on HR Strips, for payment of duty on the CR strips; that there was no dispute of the duty-paid nature of the input (HR strips), nor of utilization of the goods in the manufacture of CR strips in the appellants' factory; that the only ground on which Commissioner held the Modvat credit to be inadmissible to the appellants was that the relevant invoices which had been issued by M/s. Indo-Japan Steel Ltd. to M/s. HLMS had been e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that non-pre-authentication of the invoices was only an Omission on the part of the input-supplier and the same could not be a valid ground for denial of the credit to the appellants, particularly as there was no dispute of the duty-paid nature of the input or of utilization thereof in the manufacture of final product in the appellants' factory. In this connection, reliance was placed on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE [2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 = 2000 (40) RLT 575] as also on the decision in CCE v. R.S. Industries Ltd. [2002 (147) E.L.T. 217 = 2002 (103) ECR 457]. Similar arguments were advanced by the Counsel in respect of the credit of Rs. 80,131.27 also, which was taken on the basis of invoices not bearing signature of input-supplier and pre-printed Serial Number. In this connection, the learned DR submitted that pre-authentication of, and re-printing of Serial Number on, invoice was a mandatory requirement for Modvat purpose and an assessee who wanted to enjoy the benefit of Modvat credit had to satisfy the requirement though procedural. To buttress the point, DR relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Crop Health Products Ltd. 6. What remains to be considered with regard to the demand of Rs. 24,39,841/- confirmed by the adjudicating authority is whether this demand is time-barred. The demand is in respect of the period 3-4-94 to 4-6-94 and the same was raised by the Department in show cause notice dated 2-4-96. The show cause notice alleged suppression of facts to invoke the extended period of limitation. This allegation has been resisted on the basis of a letter dated 10-6-94 submitted by the appellants on 13-6-94 to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise. A copy of this letter is available on record. This letter acknowledged the introduction of the invoice system w.e.f. 1-4-94 but stated that the appellants had followed the old practice of availing Modvat credit on endorsed invoices. The letter was accompanied by a list of the relevant invoice particulars also. Admittedly, these relevant particulars were disclosed to the Department by the appellants only after taking the Modvat credit. The relevant facts were not disclosed during, or prior to, the period of dispute. Hence, in our view, the allegation of suppression of facts for the period of dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal copies of invoices is concerned, we uphold the demand, following the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Avis Electronics (supra). 8. Regarding the credit of Rs. 1,18,155.80 taken on the basis of invoices which were not pre-authenticated, the Counsel has relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Kamakhya Steels (supra). He has also relied on the same decision in respect of the credit of Rs. 80,131.27 taken on the basis of invoices which were not bearing pre-printed Serial Numbers and signature of the input-supplier. In respect of these two credits, it appears, neither Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 9-2-99 (alongwith the CBEC Circular in clarification thereof) nor the Larger Bench decision in Kamakhya Steels was considered by the Commissioner. Sub-rule (11) of Rule 57G was inserted by Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) dated 9-2-99. The said sub-rule empowered the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to allow credit of duty paid on inputs, ignoring minor procedural defects in the duty paying documents. The Board's Circular No. 441/7/99-CX., dated 23-2-99 clarified this legal provision and instructed that all pending cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
