Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Tinplate Company Of India Ltd., ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 16 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(79)ECC712, 2002(148)ELT115(TRI-BANG)
JUDGMENT
S.S. Sekhon
1. The appellant is a registered dealer, issuing modvatable invoices. They are also the depot of a manufacturer of Tin Plates. In the course of their business, they were issuing invoice which were being taken benefit of under the Modvat Rules by their buyers. The Original authority passed an order as follows:-
"(1) I hereby deny credit taken on extra copy of the invoices.
(2) I consequently, hereby direct the Range Officer to intimate the Consignee/Customer's Jurisdictional Range Officer to take necessary action for reversal of the credit wrongly availed.
(1) I order that M/s Tinplate Company of India Limited, should in the future not pass on credit where there is no sale.
(2) I refrain from imposing any penalty, since I feel that denial of credit sufficiently covers the lapses."
2. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed that the order of the Assistant Collector is absolutely correct, valid and in accordance with provisions of law and does not require any interference.
3. The present appeal has been filed on the ground:-
a) Once it has been accepted that goods have been received and accounted, there was no par on passing of modvat credit on the extra copy of the invoice.
b) The duty paid nature or receipt of the goods was not in dispute and the lapses could have been condoned.
c) A finding regarding the permission sought for availing credit and bonafides of the appellant was not arrived at and the Commissioner has failed to note that invoices are described as valid documents by a manufacturer clearing his goods from his depot. And the Commissioner has failed to give a finding on the decision of the Assistant Commissioner that they were not entitled to issue invoices from the depot in respect of stock transfers which is not correct.
d) Credit was being passed on to customers and the appellants were not availing the same has not been considered.
4. The matter was heard, when the learned Advocate Shri Rameshananthan appearing for the appellant submitted that they would consider withdrawing the appeal, if on verification it was found that their clients, who had obtained the goods and the documents from them have not been proceeded against for the eligibility of the credit which they might have taken. He sought time for this purpose. He submitted that since they were dealers as a depot of the manufacturing company, they were entitled to the benefit of the instructions of the Board and the Ministry for availment of modvat credit on the basis of Affidavit and other documents which they had filed in cases of loss of the original duty credit entitlement documents. This aspect has not been considered by the lower authorities and prayed that this should be considered and ordered.
5. Revenue on the other hand submits that extra copy of the invoice is not a prescribed document under any of the modvat rules and these extra copies itself have a declaration on them that these copies are not for modvat purposes. In view of the same, no objection could be found with the orders of the lower authorities. It was also submitted that there are no Affidavits or any other corroborative documents to claim the benefit of documents lost and reconstructions allowed as was submitted across the bar.
6. I have considered the matter and find:-
(a) no useful purpose will be served by giving another adjournment to the appellants to verify what happened to their customers. The very same plea was made when the stay application came up for hearing on 24.11.97, enough time has elapsed. They have failed to have verified as they still seek time. If the shoe was pinching somewhere, shrieks would have been heard by now. In absence of any noise being made by the customers, this plea of adjournment is rejected.
(b) I find no difficulty in upholding the orders of the lower authority with a rider, if the documents for authorizing lost documents, as prescribed under the Boards or the Ministry's instructions have been filed, the lower authorities should consider them, if they have not considered the same earlier.
7. With these observations, I would dismiss the present appeals.
8. Ordered accordingly.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)