Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Ciens Laboratories on 1 October, 2001
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (Judicial)
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that modvat credit is admissible to the respondents herein on the strength of endorsed invoice (Rs. 1054/-) and on the strength of invoice not containing certain particulars such as time of removal and mode of transport and printed serial numbers. According to the ld. DR an endorsed invoice is not a valid duty paying document for the purpose of taking credit and further the particulars contained in proforma as prescribed were not found in the invoice and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to avail credit. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order.
2. The prayer is opposed by Shri Biradar who submits that since the invoice was issued in June, 1994, endorsement is not fatal to the claim of the assessee of the modvat. He also submits that since the basic requirement regarding duty paid nature of the inputs covered by the invoice, receipt and utilisation thereof by the respondent is not disputed, lack of the details which set out above only amounts to procedural lapse which should not result in denial of credit.
3. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I agree with the ld. D.R. that the credit for a sum of Rs. 1054/- is not admissible in view of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Balmer Lawr(sic) Ltd. wherein it has been held that endorsed invoices are not valid duty paying documents for the purpose of availing credit. However, as regards the remaining amount of credit, the submission of the respondent that there has been substantial compliance with the requirement of rules relating to taking credit is required to be accepted. Therefore, but for the denial of credit of Rs. 1054/- I hold that the respondents are entitled to the remaining amount of credit in question. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
(Dictated in Court)