Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
M/S. Gilloram Gaurishankar vs Cce, Patna on 1 June, 2001
ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa.
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty and penalty I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.
2. The modvat credit of duty has been denied to the appellants on the ground that the same has been availed on the basis of original copy of the invoices. The appellant during the adjudication proceedings has contended before the Asst. Commissioner that they were trying to locate the duplicate invoice which will be submitted at the later stage. However, the Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand by denying them the modvat credit. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), they placed all the relevant facts including the duplicate of the invoice. Commissioner (Appeals) however rejected the appeal by observing that the same was not placed before the proper officer along with filing of RT-12 return and as such benefit could not be extended to them inasmuch as non-submitting of duplicate copies at the time of filing of RT-12 returns amounts to violation of mandatory provisions of law and likely to facilitate misuse of modvat credit.
3. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld.consultant appearing before me submits that at the relevant time the duplicate copy of the invoice was mis-placed in their factory. However, as soon as the same was found by them it was submitted before superintendent for defacement. He submits that the benefit of credit should not be denied on the ground of late filing of duplicate copies of the invoices. I have also heard Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld.JDR for the Revenue.
4. Undisputedly the duplicate copies of the invoices, on the basis of which an assessee can avail the credit, were placed before the superintendent as also before the Commissioner (Appeals). The observation of the appellate authority that late filing of duplicate copies can facilitate misuse of modvat credit are not appreciable inasmuch as production of duplicate copies before the central excise authorities for defacement purposes is a mandatory requirement and as such, it is unlikely that any other assessee would have taken the benefit of the modvat credit on the basis of such duplicate copies, which are said to have been lost in the appellants' own factory. As such I am of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the said duplicate copies so produced by the appellants instead of rejecting their appeal. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Asst. Commissioner for verification of the duplicate copies of the invoices and to decide the matter afresh. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
5. Dictated in the court.