Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs Cce on 25 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(88)ECC105, 2004(161)ELT710(TRI-CHENNAI)
JUDGMENT S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. All these three appeals arises from common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 106 to 108/99 dated 25.5.99, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, has confirmed the Order-in-Original in rejecting the modvat credit solely on the ground that the appellants had received the documents from M/s. Madras Suspension (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd. (MSKPL), Hosakote for manufacture of components on job-work basis while the commercial invoice had been raised in respect of the same goods from M/s. Madras Suspension Private Ltd., Madurai (MSPL). The appellant had placed the order for supply of these items to M/s. MSPL, Madurai, who in turn had placed the order for manufacture of these items to M/s. MSKPL Hosakote. The inputs have been received in terms of the order placed by the appellant from M/s. MSKPL., Hosakote. The Commercial invoice was raised by M/s. MSPL, Madurai, which tallied with the goods supplied by M/s. MSKPL Ld. Commissioner after due examination did not accept the documents although he admitted that the goods were received under cover of MSKPL invoices which shows the excise duty payment and relevant serial number in the RG 23A debit or PLA etc. e.g. Invoice No. 591 dt. 18.12.94.
However, he noticed that the credit was raised on the basis of MSPL documents which is only a commercial invoice and is not eligible for credit even if it gives a cross reference to MSKPL documents. In that light of the matter, he did not accept the commercial invoice and the relevant document of MSPL, as a valid document for the grant of modvat credit and confirmed the original order directing the appellants to reverse the modvat credit.
2. Ld. Counsel submits that it is a usual procedure in the industries to place orders to one of the manufacturers and the said manufacturer would place orders to their job workers and direct the job workers to supply these items directly as required by the appellant. The manufacturer raised the commercial invoice in terms of the orders received by them, which tallied with the invoiced of the job workers. In terms of the duty paid documents, these documents are also relevant documents for taking modvat credit. He submits that in a similar situation, the Tribunal accepted the plea and held that the documents are valid documents for the grant of modvat credit. He relied on the judgment of Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, 1997 (89) ELT 180 (Tri.), the Tribunal noted the fact of transit sale of inputs received directly at Hyderabad from the manufacturer but with invoice in favour of a dealer at Calcutta. The destination of the goods was shown as Hyderabad, The dealer also raised invoice for the same goods in the name of the appellant giving description and necessary duty particulars required under Notification No. 15/94-CE (NT). In view of this, the corresponding documents were verifiable. The Tribunal held that there is substantial compliance with the procedure and the appellant were eligible for modvat credit.
3. In the case of BEEPEE Coatings Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara, 1997 (92) ELT 223 (Tri.) the Tribunal held that the appellant were entitled to the claim of modvat credit, on the fact that the inputs were received by the job workers with invoice in the name of the customer. Such invoices were then endorsed by the customers in favour of the job worker. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the modvat credit was not deniable when correlation of inputs with duty paid documents is established. The Tribunal followed its own judgment rendered in case of Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay, 1996 (85) ELT 149.
4. In the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Prem Industries, 1997 (94) ELT 103 (Tri), the Tribunal has noted that the appellant had taken modvat credit on challans issued by consignment agents for duty paid inputs as admissible documents. The Challans had been issued by consignment agents of TISCO indicating that they were not acting independently but on behalf of TISCO as their principals. Exact quantity and duty involved on the inputs had been shown in the relevant documents. The Tribunal found the essential requirements of Board's circular dated 23.1.89 had been fulfilled. The Tribunal followed its earlier judgment rendered in the case of Hera Cycle Works v. Collector of CE, Chandigarh, 1994 (71) ELT 1017 (Tri.).
5. On the other hand Ld. SDR relied on the judgment rendered in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (69) ECC 272 (Tri-LB) : 2000 (117) ELT 571 (Tri-LB), in the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that the credit cannot be taken, when there in a loss of duplicate copy of invoice. Ld. SDR submitted that the documents were required to be verified. Likewise, she relied on the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-I, 1998 (102) ELT 201 (Tri). In this case, the invoice had been issued by the dealer of non-manufacturer. It was held to be not a valid document for modvat credit. Further reliance was made to the case of Standard Surfactants Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur, 2000 (115) ELT 763 (Tri.), wherein it was held that modvat taken on invoice issued by the dealers were not admissible for the grant of modvat.
6. I carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. So far as the larger Bench citations referred to by the Ld. SDR, the issue therein pertained to the loss of duplicate copy of invoice which is not the issue in the present case. Likewise, in the case of Standard Surfactants Ltd. (supra), the invoices had been issued by the dealer who were not the manufacturers and also they were non-registered dealers. These citations are distinguishable. The citations relied by the Ld. Counsel are more or less similar to the facts of the case. In all these cases referred to by the counsel, the goods and documents were verifiable; although the goods had been received from the manufacturer with the duty paid documents; while invoice had been raised by the dealer or customers and in favour of the job worker. Such items are duty paid ones and invoice were found to be verifiable. The Tribunal held that there were no violations of Notification and Board's circular. In the present case there is no dispute on the fact that commercial invoice had been raided (sic) by MSPL. MSKPL manufactured the items and paid duty and supplied the items to the appellant. Commercial invoices gave the details of the goods manufactured by MSKPL on which duty had been paid and were verifiable. Both the authorities have examined the documents and found that the details were matching with the commercial invoice raised. However, the credit has been taken on MSPL document. As long as the documents and inputs are matchable then the credit cannot be denied. For this purpose, I respectfully following (sic) the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel noted supra. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed accordingly.