Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
M/S. Air Conditioning Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 3 May, 2001
ORDER
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa
1. The benefit of MODVAT Credit of Rs.49,750.00 has been disallowed to the appellants on the ground that the invoices on the basis of which they have taken the MODVAT Credit were not proper modvatable documents inasmuch as the information was not pre-printed, but was rubber-stamped. A penalty of Rs.5,000.00 has also been imposed upon them.
2. Shri D.K.Saha, learned Consultant for the appellant firm has shown me the invoices. The information as regards the address of the supplier, Range/Division and the Commissionerate under which the supplier falls, and name and address of the appellant firm has been shown in rubber-stamp. An objection being raised by their jurisdictional Central Excise, the appellants approached their supplier who vide their letter dated 19.4.96 clarified that they have used the old stationery and and as such, the necessary information was rubber-stamped instead of being pre-printed. In the said letter they have again given relevant information and they also offered to print the said two invoices in question. Shri Saha has drawn my attention to the Order No.A-1008/Cal/2000, whereas the MODVAT Credit denied on the basis of the invoices issued by the same supplier, M/s. Shriram Refrigeration Industries reported in 1999(112)ELT-511, was allowed by the Tribunal.
3. Shri A.K.Chattopadhyay, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue has also referred to few cases holding that pre-printing of invoices after issuance of notification was a mandatory requirement.
4. After considering the submissions made from both sides, I find that the Tribunal's Order relied upon by the learned Consultant, is identical to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case also, the invoices were issued by M/s. Shriram Refrigeration Industries who are suppliers in the instant case and the information as rubber-stamped in the present case was also rubber-stamped in that case. The Tribunal after referring to a number of earlier decisions held that though there were procedural contraventions, the same should not result in denial of the benefit of the MODVAT Credit to the receiver of the invoice. As such, following the ratio of the above decision, I set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
Dictated in the open court.