Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Supreme Plastics Industries on 29 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(83)ECR98(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the validity of the invoices marked by rubber stamp as 'duplicate' for availing modvat credit. The respondents, M/s. Supreme Plastics Industries were registered with the Central Excise Department for the manufacture of the excisable goods chargeable to duty. They were availing the benefit of modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of their final products under Rule 157A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). They had availed of the benefit of Modvat Credit of Rs. 19,468/- on the strength of the invoices which did not have the impression "duplicate for transporter" pre-printed. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) relying upon the Tribunal's decision observed that there was not justification to deny the modvat credit only on the ground that the marking as "duplicate for transporter" had been done by stamping and not by printing. In appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that the circular No. 96/7/95-CX dated 13.2.1995 provided that the in- voices were required to be pre-printed with the marking "duplicate for transporter", for the purposes of availing the modvat credit. It has also been pleaded that undue relaxation of statutory requirements by quasi-judicial authority was not permissible because these authorities have not been vested with any such powers and that the power to relax procedural requirements vested with the Central Government or Central Board of Excise & Customs. It has been further pleaded that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) being subordinate authority should not have decided the appeal over-ruling the Board's circular.
2. On 8.9.1998, I have heard Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR for the appellants/Revenue. Shri N. Bajaj, C.A. represented the respondents, M/s. Supreme Plastic Industries.
3. I have carefully considered the matter. Under Sub-rule (4A) inserted vide Notification No. 2/95-CE(NT) dated 19.1.1995, under Rule 57GG (which had been inserted in the Rules vide Notification No. 33/94-CE(NT) dated 4.7.1994), the copies of the invoices were required to be marked on the top in bold capital letters in the following manner namely:
(1) the original copy shall be marked as original for buyer (2) the duplicate copy shall be marked as duplicate for transporter This duplicate copy was to be used for taking modvat credit under Rule 57G or as the case may be, for making receipt entries in register maintained under Rule 57GG (3) the triplicate copy shall be marked as triplicate for central excise, (4) The quadruplicate copy shall be marked as quadruplicate for registered person.
4. The Circular No. 96/7/95/CX dated 13.2.1995 prescribed the procedure to be followed by the registered persons i.e. the persons issuing invoices under Rule 57G of the Rules. Although the Board's Circular provided that the description-original/duplicate/triplicate/quadruplicate were required to be preprinted, I find that in the relevant Rule at the relevant time the requirement was that the copies of the invoices shall be marked at the top in bold capital letters in the manner given above.
5. The Tribunal in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneswar had observed that dis-allowance of the modvat credit on the ground of rubber stamping could not be sustained.
Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad 1997 (21) RLT 659 (Tribunal) and in the case of Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (21) RLT 731 (Tribunal).
The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Indore 1997 (73) ECR 632 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal had observed that the failure to mark the words "duplicate for transporters" on the duplicate copy of the invoices was not a sufficient reason to deny the modvat credit.
The respondents in their cross objections had also referred to the Tribunal's decisions in the case of Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur 1998 (26) RLT 600 (CEGAT) and RT Packaging Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi 1998 (26) RLT 602 (Cegat).
6. I find that the issue is covered by the Tribunal's aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere with the views taken by the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.