Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Spic Pharmaceuticals Division on 3 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(113)ECC43, 2006ECR43(TRI.-CHENNAI), 2007(207)ELT84(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. No representation for the third time for the respondents despite notice. Today's is the last chance given to them and the same has not been availed of. Hence I proceed to dispose of the appeal after examining the records and hearing learned Jt. CDR.
2. It appears from the records that the respondents had taken Modvat credit of Rs. 2,47,406/- in the year 1999 on the strength of 36 invoices issued by M/s, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M/s. IOCL). The credit was disallowed by the original authority after noting that, though the invoices had mentioned particulars of duty payment on the inputs supplied to the assessee, such duty had not been paid to the Exchequer by M/s. IOCL. The authority took the view that Modvat credit was not validly passed on by the input-supplier and hence not admissible to the assessee. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit to the assessee by relying the Tribunal's decision in R.S. Industries v. CCE, New Delhi Hence the present appeal of the Revenue.
3. Learned Jt. CDR distinguishes the case of R.S. Industries (supra) by submitting that, in that case, duty had been subsequently recovered from the input-supplier unlike in the instant case. After reading the Tribunal's order in R.S, Industries (supra), I find that the appellant therein had taken input-duty credit on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Prema Metal Industry (input-supplier) who had themselves availed similar credit on the same goods on the basis of bogus invoices. The Department booked a case of fraud against the party who issued the bogus invoices and ultimately confirmed consequential demand of duty against M/s. Prerna Metal Industry, suppliers of inputs to R.S. Industries. Notwithstanding this fact, the Tribunal held thus:
Once the Revenue is not disputing the receipt of goods under the cover of invoices by the appellants which contained duty paying particulars the Modvat credit cannot be denied to the appellants. As far as the appellants are concerned they have purchased the goods which are dutiable on the strength of the invoices carrying duty payment particulars.
4. In the instant case also, there is no dispute of receipt of inputs by the respondents in their factory under cover of invoices (issued by M/s. IOCL), which contained duty payment particulars. Obviously, they had purchased goods which were dutiable on the strength of invoices earning duty payment particulars. The credit taken by them was of such duty. On these facts, I find, the view taken in R.S. Industries (supra) is squarely applicable to the instant case. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly applied the law.
5. In the result, the Revenue's appeal gets dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)