Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Steel Industrials Kerala Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(61)ECC159
ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member
1. In this appeal, the appellants are aggrieved with Order-in-Appeal No. 323/96 dated 6.8.97 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin. The appellants are manufacturers of goods falling under Chapters 72, 73, 85, 87 and 89 of Central Excise Tariff. Show cause notice was issued to them proposing to disallow MODVAT Credit of Rs. 39,203/- availed by them, on the ground that the relevant invoices do not contain all the information required under Rule 57-GG of Central Excise Rules. It was contended by the appellants that they had obtained steel from various branch offices of M/s. SAIL, a Government of India Undertaking. The appellants is a Government of Kerala Undertaking. M/s. SAIL have been following centralised computer system throughout India and they were preparing one challan for each truck load even if different material are sent through the same truck. Delivery is effected in different lorries and different challans are issued which are serially numbered. They also stated that non-reflection of supplier's information in challans is due to non-receipt of documents in time and as and when it is required the same are supplied. Hence, there was no intention to evade payment of duty and availing MODVAT Credit was proper. It was also submitted that the value and quantity had been clearly mentioned in the invoice and it had been specifically supplied by the supplier. Even if there are certain irregularities in the invoices issued by M/s. SAIL, the appellants are entitled to the benefit as there are notifications issued by the Government of India which provides that, in case of supplies made by M./s SAIL, all the details contained under Rule 57-GG need not be complied with. In this regard, Board's letter No. 211 /33/86-CX.6 was also produced. However, both the authorities did not accept their contention and rejected their plea.
2. The Ld. Counsel submits that in a large number of Tribunals cases this issue was agitated and the Tribunal has considered this as a technical breach and on that ground it was held that MODVAT Credit could not be denied in such cases. He cites the following judgments:
CCE. Chandigarh v. Ajit Cotton Ginning, P.D.S.R. Mills Pahladrai Confectioneries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CCE CCE v. GEC Alsthom India Ltd.
3. The Ld. DR submits that in the case of CCE v. SIV Industries Order No. 2862/97, the Single Member of this Bench had remanded the matter for de novo consideration.
4. On a careful consideration of the submissions, I notice that in large number of Tribunal judgments, in a case of this nature the violation is technical in nature and benefit is required to be extended. However, the Ld. DR points out one judgment, wherein, the matter was remanded to de novo verify the material particulars in the invoices and only thereafter granting MODVAT Credit. The Ld. DR submits that this matter can be remanded as no verification has been done at the earliest instance.
5. I am satisfied, that the appellants have a case on merits although the issue is covered by various judgments, it is necessary that the authorities verified the contents of the invoices before granting MODVAT Credit. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority to grant the MODVAT Credit on satisfying with the material contents of the duty paying nature of the invoices, in the light of the judgments cited by the Counsel. In case if the benefit is granted to them, the appellants are entitled for consequential relief.
Pronounced and dictated in open Court.