Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Sandish Combine Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(105)ELT468(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Since the matter is covered by the precedent Tribunal decision, stay is granted and the appeal is taken up for disposal.
2. In this case, the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, had dropped the proceedings against the appellants herein initiated by a show cause notice to deny the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,40,130/- availed of during the period July, 1994 to August, 1994 on the strength of invoice issued by the dealers who are reportedly not registered under the Central Excise Rules. The Dy. Commissioner when dropping the demand noted that the Government has issued Notification No. 64/94-C.E. (N.T.) permitting acceptance of prescribed invoice during the transitional period upto 31-12-1994 even from dealers who are not registered themselves. This order of the Dy. Commissioner was sought to be reviewed by filing an appeal for the purpose before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has passed the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Dy. Commissioner's order and allowed the Department's appeal holding that the registration of the dealers under Rule 57GG is a substantive requirement and since the dealers in the instant case were not registered under that Rule, even upto the extended period of 31-12-1994, the invoices issued by them should be treated as invalid.
3. Shri A.C. Mutha, the ld. Counsel for the appellants, has cited and relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Bengal Safety Industries v. CCE, Calcutta - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 81, whereunder, in the similar circumstances, the Tribunal held that the requirement of registration of dealers under Rule 57GG is only a procedural one and that the substantive benefit of Modvat should not be denied if the duty paid nature of the input material is not in dispute.
4. After hearing the ld. DR Shri K.L. Ramtake for the Revenue, it is seen that the ratio of the decision squarely will apply to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal in that decision has noted that the Board's circular issued was to alleviate some of the difficulties faced by the trade and industry in respect of new provisions regarding issue of invoice by registered dealers. The Tribunal noted that if a particular dealer has failed to register himself within the time limit extended by the Board's circular, the matter cannot be held against the user of the input because it is not in his hands. The Tribunal held that the requirements under Notification No. 32/94 and 33/94 are procedural in nature and that the substantive benefit allowing the Modvat cannot be denied on merely procedural deviations. Hence it was held that the benefit of such invoices issued by the dealers who are not registered themselves with the authorities even subsequently should not be denied. In the present case also there is a clear finding by the Dy. Commissioner that there is no allegation that the goods covered by the said invoices were non-duty paid or clandestinely removed and also the fact that the goods were supplied by the authorised dealer of the manufacturer has not been disputed. In these circumstances, applying the ratio of the precedent decision, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.