Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Parikh Resins & Polymers Ltd. vs C.C.E., Ghaziabad on 28 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(138)ELT356(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that the invoices issued by the dealers were not in conformity with the provisions of Notification 33/94-CE (NT) dated 4.7.94.
2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that a show cause notice was issued on 26.12.94 to the appellants on the ground that they are not entitled for the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of invoices issued by unregistered dealers. He submits that after issuance of show cause notice, the appellants produced evidence before the revenue in respect of registration of the dealer. He submits that in the adjudication order, the adjudication authority admitted the fact that the dealers were registered prior to 30.12.94, but denied the benefit of credit on different grounds, such as rate of duty not mentioned in the invoice, quantity supplied by the manufacturer was not mentioned in the invoice and the quantity procured by the dealer was not mentioned in the invoice. His submission is that these allegations were not the basis of the show cause notice. He, therefore, submits that the adjudication order/ is beyond the scope of show cause notice.
3. Ld. D.R., appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that for taking credit on in-puts, the invoice should contain particulars as provided under notification 33/94 dated 4.7.94. As the invoices are not in conformity with the notification, the appellants are not entitled for the credit.
4. Heard both sides.
5. In this case the show cause notice was issued to the appellants for denying the credit on only one ground that the dealers, who issued the invoices, are not registered with the revenue authorities. The adjudicating, after considering the reply, held that the dealers are registered with the revenue authorities, but denied the credit on different grounds. The grounds mentioned in the adjudication order for denying the credit should not be the basis of the show cause notice. Therefore, the impugned order is beyond the scope of show cause notice. Further, the adjudication order shows that the adjudication authority asked for comments of jurisdictional Supdt. in respect of invoices in dispute and the jurisdictional Supdt., after verification, submitted that all the invoices are modvatable documents except one invoice. The adjudicating authority, further, without commenting upon the report submitted by the Supdt, which was duly submitted after due verification, confirmed the demand. In view of the above discussion, as the impugned order is beyond the scope of show cause notice, is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in Court).