Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Ashok Iron Works Ltd., Belgaum vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 10 December, 2001
JUDGMENT
G.A. Brahma Deva
1. Shri V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that following issues are involved in these appeals.:
1. Admissibility of modvat credit of Rs. 3,69,327/- availed on the strength of delivery challan cum invoices issued by M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., during the period from April 94 to June 94.
2. Admissibility of Modvat credit of Rs. 10,884/- availed on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., during the period from May 94 to June 94.
3. Whether refractory cement used for the inner lining of furnace is eligible as input under Rule 57-A or not? and the modvat credit of Rs. 2,964/- is admissible or not?
4. Modvat credit of Rs. 3,633/- availed on the basis of original copies of the invoices is deniable for failure of the appellants to follow the procedure prescribed for allowing credit on the basis of original copies of the invoices in case of loss of duplicate for transporter copies of the invoices?
2. He submitted that modvat credit of Rs. 3,69,327/- was availed on the basis of delivery challan - cum - invoice issued by M/s. SAIL during the period from April 94 to June 94. The same has been denied for the reason that the above delivery challan-cum -invoice do not contain the prescribed particulars as per notification No. 15/99 and 16/99 dated 23.3.99. He submitted that the said invoice-cum-delivery challan issued by M/s. SAIL contains certificate about the duty paid nature of the goods and accordingly, there was no justification for denying the benefit. Further with reference to modvat credit Rs. 3,633/-, he submitted that he party availed credit based on the original copy of the invoice since duplicate copy was lost. He also submitted that during the relevant time there was no procedure prescribed for availing credit on original copy of duplicate was lost. Accordingly same could not be intimated to the authorities.
3. Heard Shri Narasimha Murthy learned DR for the revenue.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and on going through the impugned order, I find that the assessing authority has denied the credit on procedural lapses. It is settled position now that procedural lapses if any should not come in the way of denial of substantial justice. However, the factual position requires to be verified by the assessing authority about the duty paid nature of documents. In view of this position, this matter is allowed by way of remand to enable the assessing authority to examine the issue afresh and to pass an order accordingly on providing an opportunity to the party. The appellant may substantiate his claim during the readjudication proceedings. Thus this appeal is disposal of in the above terms.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)