Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
V.S.L. Alloys India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 19 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(86)ELT554(TRI-DEL)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against the Order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 5-12-1995. The short facts leading to the issue are as follows :-
1. M/s. V.S.L. Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. had taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs received under original copy of the manufacturer's invoices issued under Rule-52 A during the months of April, July and August, 1994. After issuing two show cause notices, the Asstt. Collector held that such Modvat credit taken by the assessee was inadmissible and directed them to deposit the amount of Rs. 68,728.47. The Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, upheld the order giving rise to the present appeal.
2. The ld. Advocate stated that the second copy of the various invoices accompanying the inputs were detained at the barrier by the Trade Tax Authorities. The appellants, therefore, had to take the Credit on the original copies. Citing the provisions of Notification No. 15/95-CE (NT) dated 30-3-1994, the learned Advocate argued that this notification, which specifies the documents on the strength of which Modvat credit can be taken does not stipulate as to which copy has to be presented for taking such Credit. When asked as to why the assessee did not approach the jurisdictional Asstt. Collector in terms of Rule 57G(2A), the ld. Advocate replied that these provisions were notified to the trade by the Collectorate sometime in December, 1994 only.
3. The ld. JDR in his submissions said that it was not known why the concerned invoices, were detained by the Sales Tax Authorities. Reasons given by the assessees were duly discussed by the Asstt. Collector before rejecting the request of the appellants. He claimed that there was no cause for (sic) any reliance to them. He also observed that Rule 57G(A2) did not provide for acceptance of original invoices except in the case of loss of the duplicate invoices and that the rule came into force after the availment by the assessees.
4. The ld. Advocate in his counter cited the judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 282) and also of the Delhi High Court reported in 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 329) and claimed that these two judgments had given a wider interpretation to the terms "loss". The ratio of the judgments should be read in generic terms so as to cover the incidence of theft or detention or by an accident.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the related documents.
6. Rule 52A as amended on 1-3-1994 clearly stipulates that the duplicate copy of the invoice was to be used for taking Credit under the Modvat Scheme. The provisions of this Rule are not qualified by the Notification issued under Rule 57G. Even if it is to be accepted that this notification does not stipulate as to which copy is to be tendered, it does not take away this specific prescription made under the Rule 52A that the duplicate copy alone is to be used for obtaining the Credit.
7. Loss of the duplicate copy in transit is not an unusual event. This has been provided under Rule 57G(2A) itself. The assessee could approach the Asstt. Collector and have their original copy accepted. Even before this specific provision was being made in Rule 57G, there existed a practice whereby authentication could be made by the Range Officer at the source as to the validity of the document. Nothing prevented the assessee from going to the empowered officer to seek acceptance of the original copy. The Asstt. Collector could surely have entertained their plea of the wider definition of the word "loss". The Asstt. Collector had correctly arrived at his findings as to the inadmissibility at the Credit taken on wrong documentation. The Collector (Appeals) has also correctly upheld the order of the lower authorities.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments made before me. I see no reason to interfere with the order. Hence, this appeal is rejected.