Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 9 June, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(111)ELT652(TRI-DEL)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. These two appeals are from the same assessees involving the same point and are, therefore, taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.
2. Shri C.B. Tarika, authorised nominee of the assessee argued the case and Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. DR represented the department.
3. In both the appeals first issue for consideration is whether caustic soda flakes used for descaling of brass tubes, are admissible input under Rule 52A or not. Before the Assistant Commissioner, the judgment of the Tribunal was cited wherein CEGAT had permitted caustic soda used as an input. The Assistant Commissioner observed that the case had no-precedence for the facts before him. The appellants before me placed reliance on Tribunal's judgment in the case of C.C.E. v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 507 (Tribunal) where the single Member permitted descaling compound used for air conditioning system as admissible inputs. The inputs in the present case, being on similar lines, do qualify Rule 57A. To this extent, impugned order, which upholds the Assistant Commissioner's order, is required to be set aside.
4. The 2nd point in No. E/138/98-NB, is the defect in the documents under which caustic soda flakes were received by the appellants. The various discrepancies cited in the show cause notice are as follows :-
1. that the invoices were not pre-authenticated;
2. that the consignee's excise registration number is not shown as also the name of the Range/Division;
3. the manufacturers' registration number and description of goods is not shown.
5. I have seen the concerned invoice. The invoice is not pre-authenticated. It appears to be computer-generated. In that case the Notification No. 23/95-C.E. (N.T.) itself waives the condition of pre-authentication. The particulars of manufacturers alleged to be wanting are found to be inscribed on the invoice. Shri Tilak, ld. DR suggests that they were later added. It is correct that the consignee's excise registration number, Range/Division, details are not shown but the town and the state are recorded therein. If this is the only shortfall, then it would not be sufficient to deny the Modvat credit. Since it is in doubt whether at the time of receipt, the manufacturers' details were available on the invoice or not, the proceedings will have to sent back to the Assistant Commissioner. If in de novo proceedings he finds the invoice was computer-generated and that the manufacturers' locational details including registration number, were available on the invoice, then notwithstanding the lack of registration, and the details of Range/Division of the consignee, he shall proceed to allow Modvat credit.
6. In case of Appeal No. E/139/98-NB, the first allegation is that the invoices were not pre-authenticated. Five of the six invoices were raised by the same supplier as in Appeal No. E/138/98-NB. Here also the allegation is made that consigners' registration number and ECC code of the consigner is not available on the invoices. I find that the invoices show Delhi Excise Number 133/94/Delhi, dated 20-3-1994. It is not known as to how the Assistant Commissioner missed these particulars. On the observation, as were made by me in Appeal No. E/138/98-NB, the Assistant Commissioner is directed to examine these five invoices also towards the same purpose.
7. Thus, in both appeals, the admissibility of caustic soda flakes as inputs under Rule 57A is upheld. The proceedings are remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner for verification as per orders above. These two appeals are allowed by way of remand.