Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Haryana Leather Chemicals Ltd. on 23 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999ECR135(TRI.-DELHI), 1999(107)ELT444(TRI-DEL)
ORDER P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Heard Shri T.A. Arunachalam, JDR in support of Revenue's appeal.
2. Short controversy in this appeal of the Revenue is whether the dealers who issued the invoices dated 20th July, 1994 was a registered dealer or not.
2.1 In the adjudication proceedings before the Additional Collector of Central Excise, the respondents herein submitted before the said authority that both the importer and the dealer from whom he purchased the goods were registered with Central Excise Department and their registration Nos. were 1071/Dealer/DNA/R-I/94 and 1072/Dealer/DNA/R-I/94 respectively. Despite this, the adjudicating authority found in respect of these two invoices that the dealer was neither registered at the time of issue of the invoice nor the party was able to submit the copy of the registration certificate to substantiate their claim that the party got itself registered consequent to issue of Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994.
2.3 Against the aforesaid finding by the adjudicating authority on this issue the lower appellate authority has found that the supplier was registered with Central Excise as a dealer and that the respondents herein produced a copy of registration certificate.
2.4 In the face of the above finding of the lower appellate authority, it is not possible to comprehend the following ground of appeal in the Revenue's appeal :-
"The order in appeal does not mention when does the party got itself registered with the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities in compliance with the Notification No. 32/94 (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994."
The lower appellate authority has very clearly stated that the supplying dealer has registered himself and the registration certificate number has also been given before the adjudicating authority itself. The certificate was also produced before the lower appellate authority. Date of registration, therefore, in my view becomes immaterial particularly when the difference in the date of Notification No. 32/94, dated 4-7-1994 and date of issue of invoices is hardly a fortnight or so. It is purely a procedural deviation even if we assume at the time of issue of invoices the dealer might not have registered himself and the registration might have been effected later. Revenue is not challenging the genuineness of the invoices. Therefore, I do not accept the ground of Revenue on this aspect.
4. Another issue involved in the appeal is whether the invoice mentioning the name of the respondent company and giving the address thereof as both Faridabad and Jind would make a material difference or not. On this also the finding of the lower appellate authority as given below is, in my view, in order and no fault can be found therewith:-
"They submit that the mention of Faridabad in addition to Jind in the address was of no consequence as the invoice was in their name also indicated Jind. They also produced Lorry receipt showing (consignment Note No. 11249) the transport of the very goods (Lorry receipt No. 66717) from Faridabad to Jind. They have submitted that there is no dispute about the receipt of the goods or its utilisation in the manufacture."
I accordingly dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.