Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Advance Lamp Components (P) Ltd. vs Cce, Allahabad on 14 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(129)ELT78(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
C.N.B. Nair
1. The present appeal is directed against denial of modvat credit to the appellant.
2. The appellant is a manufacturer of glass and glassware for which soda ash is one of the inputs. The appellant was eligible for modvat credit of the duty paid on soda ash. They purchased two consignment from M/s. Ashok Chemical, Ferozabad under cover of invoice Nos. 7348 and 7349 dated 20.7.94. The amount of duty involved was Rs. 65,158/-. The credit has been denied on the ground that the dealer (M/s Ashok Chemical) form whom the purchase was made has not taken registration, as required under Notification No. 32/94 dated 4.7.94.
3. The appellant have submitted that at the time of purchase of the goods the appellant was not aware of the requirement that the dealer was required to take registration. It has also been submitted that the fact about duty having been paid on the goods could have been verified by the Central Excise Authorities. Instead of that credit has been denied arbitrary. The appellants submits that the Tribunal has held in the case of Bengal Safely Industries Vs. CCE, Calcutta-I reported in 1997 (92) ELT 8 that non-registration by a dealer is not a ground for denying credit. They have also submitted that the denial of the credit. They have also submitted that the denial of the credit is also against the instruction of the Board, inasmuch as, dealers had been given time for registration upto December, 1994 and invoices issued upto that time, pending registration, had to be treated as valid document for modvat purposes.
4. The appellants have also submitted that they had placed the decision of the Tribunal is Bengal Safety Industries case before the Commissioner but the Commissioner chose to pass the impugned order contrary to the Tribunals order in Bengal Safety Industries case. They submit that the Commissioner was bound by the order of the Tribunal and his action in passing an order contrary to the Tribunals order was a violation of judicial discipline.
5. A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the order passed by the Commissioner is contrary to the principles laid-down in the Tribunal's decision in Bengal Safety Industries case. The Commissioner has stated so clearly in the order. It reads.
"In support of their claim, reliance was placed by the appellants on the judgement of the case of Minerva Pvt. Ltd. (final) order No. A/851/99/MBS dt. 5.2.99. In this order, relying upon the case law of Bengal Safety Industries v/s CCE, Calcutta-1197 (92) ELT 81 (T), the Hon'ble CEGAT held that credit taken on the basis of the dealer invoice is nt to be denied if dealer is not registered under rule 174 of Central Excise rules 1944 as the registration of the dealer is not under the control of the assessee.
CONSIDERED:
Registration of the dealer is a mandatory requirement. Relaxation was given to the dealers to get themselves registered upto 31.12.94. It enjoins on the modvat taken to ensure that inputs/capital goods' are procured form a source which is recognised for the purpose of availment of credit. The appellant should not have procured material from an unregistered dealer if they were to avail modvat credit.
Respectfully disagreeing with the Hon'ble CEGAT I uphold the order of the Asstt. Commissioner and reject the appeal" (emphasis supplied).
6. An order of the Tribunal is binding on all authorities subordinate to its appellate jurisdiction. It was not open to the Commissioner to 'disagree' with the Tribunal and pass an order contrary to a binding order of the Tribunal. The impugned order is clearly illegal. The same is set aside consequential relief to the appellants.