Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Ceat Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 5 October, 2001
JUDGMENT
G.N. Srinivasan, Member(J)
1. Today an application for stay has come. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, the appeal is taken up for disposal after waiving disposal, with consent of both sides.
2. The appellant manufactures inter alia tyres, tubes, flaps etc. at Nasik and the said goods fall under chapter 40 of the CETA. The appellant availed modvat credit i.e. input credit as well as capital goods. In the usual course of business they have claimed modvat credit on 45" tyre curing press model 350-45 M9 under Rule 57Q. They submitted billable Delivery Note No. 947 dated 9.2.1995 issued by L & T - Mc-Neil Ltd., Madras and it was invoiced to CEAT Ltd., Mumbai, A/c CEAT Ltd., Nasik. It also mentioned debit entry for duty in RG23 Part II 3385. The department issued a show cause notice dated 31.7.1995 and in item 8 in the Annexure A it seeks to deny the modvat credit that debit entry number shown in the invoice appears not correct without any reasons. The adjudicating authority, by order dated 1.8.1997, rejected the claim of the assessee without any reasons. In the appeal before the appellate authority specifically in ground (d), averment has been made as to the showing of the disputed invoice but actually should be mentioned as billable delivery note. At page 23 the specific ground has been taken before the appellate authority in the following terms:-
"d) The Additional Commissioner has erred in disallowing the modvat credit of the amount of Rs. 3,60,066/- on the grounds that the debit entry shown in the invoice appears not correct that the company has failed to give documentary evidence and that reply is not satisfactory. Further, that the Appellants had not followed the accounting procedure before issuing invoices under Rule 57Q or Rule 57T properly.
The above grounds of disallowing the modvat credit are baseless and against the facts of the case. As stated above, at the time of personal hearing, the appellant company has produced before the Additional Commission the copy of invoice No. 00947 dated 9.2.95 issued by L&T McNeil Ltd. Madras where the supplier has indicated Debit Entry No. 3385 in the invoice. Further the certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise, Madras to M/s. L&T McNeil Ltd., Madras certifying that the payment of excise duty by Debit Entry No. 3385 as given in invoice No. 947 of 1995 of L&T McNeil Ltd. was also produced. The Additional Commissioner has failed to take the same into consideration and disallowed the modvat credit on the flimsy and irrelevant grounds."
3. During the hearing, it is represented before me that the appellants produced letter written by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range VIIF Division VII, Madras 34. The letter dated 2.2.1996 addressed to L&T McNeil., Madras refers to the company's letter dated 31.1.1996. It also mentions that on verification of company's BD 947 and relevant RG23A Part II filed by the appellant, it has been found that an amount of Rs. 3,60,066/- had been paid towards duty vide RG23A Part II Sr. No. 3385 dated 9.2.1995, in respect of the said delivery note. In spite of this, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejects the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appellants failed to produce documentary evidence to satisfy. Hence the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel, Shri D.B. Shroff, argues that when the company has taken specific ground before the appellate authority, it is wrong on the part of the appellate authority they way in which he passed the impugned order. Moreover, he has also submitted the documents before me. I have verified the same. I feel that the clarifications given by the Range Superintendent at Madras clearly mentions the payment of the duty on the goods involved. Moreover, the show cause notice was wrong inasmuch as the reasons for denial sought to be made has not been specifically mentioned. I am therefore of the view that the assessee has made out the case.
5. Appeal stands allowed setting aside the impugned order.
(Dictated in Court)