Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Tumkur Conductors Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 21 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(96)ELT595(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. This matter had been earlier heard and orders in the open court was passed and stay was granted and also with the consent of both the sides since the issue fell in a short [compass] the appeal was also heard and allowed. However, the order could not be signed as the same was not typed for the reason that the concerned P.A. who remained absent without applying for leave and was finally relived from the Tribunal. In view of this, since no written order could be issued, the matter has been reposted for hearing and disposal.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellants has pleaded that the issue in the appeal relates to the acceptance of endorsed invoices for the purpose of taking Modvat credit. He has pleaded, after the switch over from the Gate Pass procedure to Invoice procedure for clearance of the goods in terms of amendment to Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, the goods were cleared under the invoice as prescribed and therefore the same were obtained by the appellants through a dealer who endorsed the same invoice to the appellant. He has pleaded that at the relevant time by issue of Notification 16/94 the gate passes which were issued prior to 1-4-1994 were held to be valid documents for the purpose of grant of Modvat credit in case the credit was taken by 30th June, 1994. He has pleaded-prior to 1-4-1994 the endorsed gate passes were acceptable as valid document and the same, therefore, continued to be valid for the purpose of Modvat credit and that the Tribunal has held so in the Order No. 2216 & 2217/96, dated 24-10-1996. He has pleaded that the invoice was prescribed as a substitute document for the gate passes from 1-4-1994 and what was applicable to the gate pass until 31-3-1994 the same should be applicable to the invoice.
3. Heard the learned SDR for the Department Shri Victor Thyagaraj. He has pleaded in similar circumstances the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pragati Concrete Products v. C.C.E. vide order passed on 24-3-1997 has allowed the Modvat credit on endorsed invoices, so long as the credit is taken till 30th June, 1994. He, therefore, leaves the matter to the Bench.
4. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. Prima Facie we find the appellants case is covered by the ratio of our decision in the case of LC Polytex v. C.C.E. vide Order Nos. 2216 & 2217, dated 24-10-1996 and the subsequent order dated 24-3-1997. In view of the above we accede to the appellants prayer for dispensation of the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 2,00,486/-.
5. Since the issue falls in a short compass, with the consent of both the sides, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.
6. We observe that with effect from 1-4-1994 the invoice was prescribed as substitute document in place of gate passes by amendment of Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules. At the relevant time, there was some confusion as to the acceptability or otherwise of the documents which were issued prior to 1-4-1994 as also as to the modalities of the issue of invoices by the manufacturers and the dealers. The Government of India issued a number of clarifications and one among them was Notification 16/94 under which taking into consideration the ground realities existing at the relevant time, Government provided for acceptance of certain categories of document which could be accepted up to 30th June, 1994 and which had been notified as valid documents under various orders issued under Rule 57G. Against Sl. No. 10 of this Notification endorsed gate passes/subsidiary gate passes/certificates could be accepted as valid documents up to 30th June, 1994 for Modvat purposes. In as much as the invoice was a substitute document for the gate pass after 1-4-1994 what would be applicable to the gate pass would be equally applicable to the invoices. In view of the above, taking into consideration the view we have already taken in the orders cited before us, we hold that the appellants would be entiteld to the Modvat credit based on the invoice which have been endorsed once. We, therefore, allow the appeal.