Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
M/S Fort William Industries Ltd. vs C.C.E. Calcutta-Iv on 10 July, 2001
ORDER
Archana Wadhwa
1. On matter being called, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice of hearing having been sent well in advance. Accordingly, I have heard Shri A.K. Chattopadhaya, learned JDR for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned order.
2. Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of the appeals filed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirming demand of duty of Rs. 9,070.00 (rupees nine thousand seventy only) and Rs. 36,280.00 (rupees thirty six thousand two hundred eighty only) and imposing personal penalties of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) and Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) respectively. The said demand of duties have been confirmed against the appellants by denying them the benefit of Modvat credit availed on the basis of delivery challan-cum-invoice on the finding that same has not been taken on the basis of duplicate copy of invoices and such documents are deficient in the mandatory requirements prescribed by different Notifications issued from time to time. It has been found that the invoice-cum-delivery challans issued by M/s I.O.C., a Public Sector Undertaking, were not showing date and time of removal, the particulars regarding payment of duty, amount of duty paid in words and figures. Appellants in their memo. of appeal have contended that though the columns meant for date and time of removal were not filled in by mistake but the date and time of removal are being shown at the top of the invoices. Further, they have submitted that apart from showing the date of payment, M/s I.O.C. has also given a certificate on the said invoices to the effect that duty has been paid on the goods in question. This factor according to the appellants has not been taken into consideration by the lower authorities.
3. After giving my careful consideration to the above submission I find that copy of the invoices is not before me. As such the appellant's contention that date and time of removal have been shown on the same cannot be appreciated. If the appellant's contention is correct, then the mere non-mentioning of the same again in the column meant for it will not disentitle the appellant from taken credit. Similarly, if the certificate given by I.O.C. on the body of the invoices reflects upon the duty paid character of the invoices, non-showing of the same by them in words and figures should not result in denial of credit to the appellants inasmuch as the said minor discrepancies are rectifiable defects. However, as regards the availment of credit not on the basis of duplicate copy of invoices, I find that Larger Bench in the case of Avis Electronics 2000 (27) RLT 501 has held that Modvat credit can be availed of on the basis of the original in case of loss of duplicate copy. The appellants have not pleaded anything in their memo. of appeals also about the duplicate copy of the invoices. Accordingly, I hold that all these factors are required to be decided afresh by the Adjudicating authority in the light of the observations made by me as above. I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals by way of remand.