Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Mogora Cosmic Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 18 September, 2003
ORDER S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. Modvat credit was denied in appeal by the Commissioner on the findings:
a) Credit claimed on basis of Gatepass issued by M/s Finelox Industries even if they contained all the particulars since there was an endorsement in the name of M/s Cotmac Ltd. and endorsed invoices are not eligible for credited and Challan cum invoice issued by M/s Cotmac were not invoices issued at the time of dispatch and were in any case not submitted to the department and were produced only after notice was ordered and they do not carry pointed serial number or marks as original/duplicate etc.
b) Details of the manufacturer of the goods not borne on the documents and goods were not directly purchased from the manufacturer. Even if M/s RV Trading Company is accepted as wholesale dealer they had purchased from M/s Select Wires who in turn have purchased from the manufacturer and it was only after 4.7.94 second stage dealers were permitted and the invoice issued on 9.5.94 could not be accepted.
c) As regard invoice of M/s Cotmac Pvt. Ltd. Nos. 722, 741, 746 and 767 and accompany annexures giving all required particulars and only one Central Excise invoice giving all the four numbers so as to synchronise with these commercial invoices was not acceptable, as these commercial invoices had been produced subsequent to the issue of notice and they were not by having marks of being original/duplicate etc and was required to be in prescribed format.
d) Since credit was availed on invalid documents penalty of Rs. 7,500/- imposed was upheld.
Hence these appeals.
2. Heard both sides and considered the material on record and found:
a) The Commissioner accepts that gate passes contain all the required particulars and thereafter denied the credit on the ground of endorsement being made twice in this case. The show cause notice was however issued for the reason that the document issued after 1.4.94 was not in the name of the assessee. The order has traveled by the notice. Therefore it cannot be upheld. The issue of entitlement to credit is upheld.
b) As regards hand written serial number, when there is no finding of the goods not having been received and duty period nature is not in doubt, then credit cannot be denied on the grounds, as arrived at in this case, relying upon Satyam Dye Large Bench decision (2001 (47) RLT 66).
c) As regards the details of the manufacturer not given and the subsequent to the notice production of the same, the matter needs to be re-determined on light of Boards Circular 441/7/99-CX dated 23.2.96.
d) The appeals therefore is partially allowed as regards the eligibility to credit except in case where the same was denied on ground of subsequent production of details. In these cases the matter is remitted to the original authority to re-determine the issue in light of Boards Order vide circular 441/7/99-CX.
3. Appeal partially allowed.
Pronounced in Court.