9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s'). The gunny bags were received from the sister unit of the appellants - M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Siswa Bazar, Maharaj Ganj, U.P. While admitting that the serial number was not printed on the invoice, the appellants pleaded in response to the show cause notice that the Modvat credit should not be denied on technicalities/procedural lapses. The Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, who adjudicated the matter held that the pre-printing of the serial number on the invoice was a mandatory requirement under Rule 52A(6), and non-compliance with such a mandatory requirement would render the invoice invalid for the purpose of availing the Modvat credit. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in sub-rule (5) was printed serial number and not marking as provided in sub-rule (5) of Rule 57GG. This decision was not brought to the notice of the Benches, who recorded the decision in the case of M/s. Erie Chem. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR replied that under Rule 52A(6), it was a mandatory requirement that each invoice should bear a printed serial number for the whole financial year beginning on the 1st April of each year. This was a substantive condition that could not be condoned. He relied opon the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Derby Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - 1999 (105) E.L.T. 672 (Tribunal). He also relied upon the Tribunal's Larger Bench decisions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor in writing." For the year 1994, the running printed serial number was to commence from 1st April, 1994 as clarified in Board's Circular. The importance of the invoice and the requirement of printed serial number for the whole of the year was highlighted by the Central Board of Excise & Customs in various circulars issued from time to time. Reference may be made to (i) Circular No. 29/29/94 CX.6, dated 21-3-1994 (at page T-9 of 1994 (70) E.L.T.) (ii) No. 34/34/94 CX.6, dated 26-4-1994 (refer page T-31 of 1994 (71) E.L.T.) and (iii) No. 212/3/94 CX.6, dated 2-5-1994 (refer page T-34 of 1994 (71) E.L.T.). In the last Circular some relaxation from the requirement of printing was given up to 31-6-1994. 4.We find that the matter is covere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marking of the words "duplicate for transporter" could be by rubber stamping. I do not consider that the same consideration could be extended in respect of the printing of the serial number under sub-rule (5) Rule 57GG." 5.The Tribunal's decisions relied upon by the ld. Advocate have not taken note of the earlier decision of the Tribunal. 6.Further, we find that the matter is also covered by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decisions. (1) M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Company Ltd. v. C.C.E., Kanpur - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal) (2) C.C.E., New Delhi v. M/s. Avis Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (Tribunal). In the case of M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Company Ltd. v. C.C.E., Kanpur - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal), the Larger Bench of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
