Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
D.P. Steel Industries (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 29 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(113)ELT243(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether Modvat credit can be denied only for the reason that the invoice issued by dealer did not contain the full particulars of the manufacturer.
2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants. The hearing notice has been sent to both appellants and their Counsel on record. The matter was taken up for disposal after hearing the ld. DR.
3. The appellants manufacture ingots and avail of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 114/97, dated 13-3-1997 disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 5,29,203/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- holding that the invoices on the strength of which Modvat credit was taken by the appellants did not contain the details prescribed under Rule 57GG(4) pertaining to the full particulars of the manufacturer. The Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the Order of the lower authority holding that the credit should not have been availed on incomplete documents. The Appellants in their appeal petition have submitted that by oversight the details of the manufacturer were not incorporated in the invoice which were subsequently got incorporated in the invoice; that this issue stands settled by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. MCE Products Sales Services Ltd. reported in 1996 (17) RLT 767 (CEGAT NB) in which case Modvat credit was allowed as the assessee had explained the missing details by way of affidavit and supporting documents. They also placed reliance in the case of Siyaram Platex (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 915 (Tribunal) in which it was held that if there is any procedural infraction which can be rectified even subsequently Modvat credit cannot be denied on that ground.
3. Ld. DR reiterated the findings contained in the order-in-original to the effect that the validity or otherwise of an invoice is to be judged on the basis of its contents at the time of its issue; that in ease certain details are missing at the time of issue of the invoice there is no mechanism under the rule by which they can be filled up subsequently so as to render the invoice valid.
4. After taking into consideration the submissions of the ld. DR and after perusing the records I find that the particulars about the manufacturers remained to be mentioned in the invoices by dealer under Rule 57GG. These particulars of the manufacturers have been furnished subsequently. No doubt the notification issued under Rule 57GG(4) requires :
"The registered person shall issue an invoice containing such details as may be specified by the CBEC or Commissioner."
However, non-mentioning of the details about the manufactures in the invoice will not render the invoice invalid so as to deprive the substantive benefit of Modvat credit under the law to the assessee, particularly as this is a curable defect. In the present case the defect has been cured as the particulars of the manufacturers have been furnished subsequently. This has been consistent view of this Tribunal that if defects are curable in nature and the defects are removed the benefit of Modvat credit cannot be denied. Accordingly, the appellants are eligible to Modvat credit and hence the appeal is allowed. Penalty imposed is also set aside.