Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 12 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(93)ELT39(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. The issue in the appeal relates to grant of modvat credit in respect of the goods received by the appellants directly, while the invoice was issued by the manufacturer in the name of their agent who was located elsewhere. The learned Counsel has pleaded that this invoice has been raised in favour of the appellants by the agent and the agent has also issued a separate commercial invoice thereafter showing the sale of the goods to the appellant. He pleaded that the goods are hazardous in nature and were sent in bulk and the nature of the goods is such that these had to be delivered directly to the factory. The supply of the goods through the agent was by way of a commercial arrangement.
2. The learned SDR pleaded that in the case of modvat rules, strict compliance is required with the rules. In the present case, the goods were received by the appellants under the invoice issued by the manufacturer and which invoice was made out in favour of the agents elsewhere and the dealers invoice which was required to accompany the goods was not available at the time of receipt of the goods. In the present case, I find that the goods have been received by the appellant on an endorsed invoice. The plea of the learned SDR is that the endorsed invoice could not be accepted as a substitute for the dealers invoice.
3. I have considered the pleas made by both sides. I observe that it is not in dispute that the goods are duty paid. The dispute is about the validity of document for modvat purposes which accompanied the goods. The invoice issued in the name of the dealer by the manufacturer and supplier of the goods has been endorsed in favour of the appellants. The receipt of the goods therefore is under an endorsed invoice which at the relevant time was the valid document for transport of the goods. At the relevant time, both the sides agreed the endorsed GPs which were issued earlier to 31-3-1994 before the invoice system came into force were acceptable until August, 1994. This Bench has held in a number of cases that if endorsed GPs were acceptable as a valid document, the invoice prescribed in lieu of gate pass under rule 57G also stands on the same footing for the purpose of grant of modvat credit and therefore the endorsed invoice itself can be taken to be a valid document for modvat purposes. In the present case, however, the appellants are in possession of the invoice issued by the dealer in respect of the very same goods. It is not disputed by the revenue that the dealers invoice corresponds to the goods in question. In the present case, as required under Notification 15/94, the required document as prescribed was also produced. I therefore hold that the appellants would be entitled to modvat credit and in this view allow the appeal.