Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Majestic Auto Ltd. vs C.C.E., Meerut-I on 11 May, 2001
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III, Ghaziabad vide his order dated 28.11.97 denied the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 4,58,056/- to the appellants on various grounds whichincluded the modvat credit availed by them on the control panel and starter panel as 'Capital goods' under rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This also included the modvat credit availed on the original copy of invoice in violation of provisions of rule 57-G.
2. The party filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 3.12.99 allowed the appeal of the party in respect of the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,65,768.86 but rejected the appeal in respect of the balance of the amount.
3. The present appeal relates to the total amount of the modvat credit of Rs. 1,26,280/- denied to the appellants by both the lower authorise. Shri V.S. Arya, Advocate, appearing for the appellants submits that out of this amount, the appellants have availed modvat credit of Rs. 7,000/- plus Rs. 8,810/- on the items Control panel and Starter panel as Capital goods under rule 57-Q. The balance amount of the credit of Rs. 47,470/- is availed on the original copy of invoice. On a careful consideration of the submissions made before me by the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Swatantar Kumar,JDR for the respondents, I am of the view that the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 47,470/- availed by them on the original copy of the invoices has rightly been disallowed to them in view of the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench of the CEGAT in CCE , New Delhi Vs. Avis Electronics - 2000 (117) ELT-571 (T). In this decision, it is held that a manufacturer can take modvat credit on the inputs only on the basis of the duplicate copy of the invoice. However, he can take credit of the duty paid on inputs on the basis of the original invoice if he satisfies the Assistant Commissioner that duplicate copy of the invoice has beeb lost in transit. In other words, a manufacturer can take credit of duty paid on inputs only on the basis of the duplicate invoice and where the duplicate copy of the invoice has been lost in transit he can take credit of the duty paid on the inputs on the basis of the original invoice provided he satisfies the Assistant Commissioner about the loss of duplicate copy. In the present matter, it is not the case of the appellant that they have availed modvat credit on the original copy of the invoice since the duplicate copy had been lost in transit. Therefore, there is no question about the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of such loss. In view of these facts, the appeal relating to the modvat credit of Rs. 47,470/- fails and the same is accordingly rejected.
4. As regards availability of modvat credit of Rs. 78,810/- on the 'control panel' and 'starter panel' as Capital goods, it is observed that the matter relating to the availability of the modvat credit on the Capital goods under rule 57-Q now stands amply clarified in the decision of the Larger Bench of the CEGAT in CCE, Indore Versus Surya Roshni - 2001 (128) ELT -293 (T-LB). In this decision, detailed guidelines have been laid on the subject. In this view, it is considered appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the original authority for considering the claim of the appellants for availment of the modvat credit on the impugned items as 'Capital goods' in the light of the above decision of the CEGAT. Therefore, the order passed by the lower appellate authority relating to this part is set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for passing a de-novo order in the light of the above observations. The party shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking a final view in the matter.
5. The appeal is thus disposed of in the above terms.
PRONOUNCED AND DICTATED IN THE OPEN COURT.