Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
M/S Modern Malleables Limited vs C.C.E., Kolkata-Ii on 19 January, 2001
ORDER
Archana Wadhwa:
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty of Rs.68,227.82 I take up the appeal with the consent of both sides.
2 Modvat credit has been denied to the appellant on the ground that the relevant columns in the invoice issued by second stage dealer which require the dealer to fill up the particulars of the name and address of the manufacturer have not been filled. Shri S.N.S. Mahapatra, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants(s) submits that the goods were first cleared by the manufacturer to the first stage dealer M/s Motiram Aggarwal under invoice which contains all the particulars of the manufacturer. Motiram Agarwal has further sold the goods to M/s Bagaria Exports Pvt. Limited in which case also the particulars are duly filled in the invoice. However, it is in the invoice of M/s Bagaria Exports Pvt. Limited that particulars have not been filled. He submits that after issuance of show-cause Notice the connecting invoices covering the movement of the goods to the appellants and giving details of all the manufacturers' invoice have been produced before the Assistant Commissioner but has been rejected by him on the ground that they were not the relevant invoices covering the transportation of the goods from M/s Bagaria Exports to the appellants. He submits that Bagaria Exports has also given a certificate certifying the movement of the goods to the appellants. He however, submits that mistake pointed out by the Revenue is a rectifiable mistake and can be rectified by the appellants, if given an opportunity to do so. Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue does not object to the appellants offer to get the invoices rectified.
3 I find that though the evidence produced by the appellants giving particulars of the manufacturer's name and address and their movement from manufacturer to first stage dealer and further to second stage dealer and to the appellants should have been considered by the Assistant Commissioner but in view of the offer made by the appellants that relevant invoices in question can be got rectified by them from the issuer of the same, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo adjudication after giving an opportunity to the appellants to get the said defect rectified by them. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
(Dictated & pronounced in Court)