Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Pearl Industries vs Collector Of Central Excise on 1 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(98)ELT745(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellants took Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs received from the Depot of M/s. IPCL. The Department alleged that the Depot of M/s. IPCL was not registered and, therefore, the invoices issued by M/s. IPCL were not documents prescribed for taking Modvat credit under Rule 57G. A reference was made to Notification No. 15/94 and No. 32/94. Shri G. Shiv Dass, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that both the Notifications No. 15/94 and 32/94 prescribed the invoices issued by a manufacturer from his factory or Depot. He submits that there is no allegation that the places from which the appellants purchased the inputs was not a depot of the manufacturer. He submits that Notification Nos. 15/94 and 32/94 speak of invoices issued by manufacturer or his depot or his factory. He submits that the notifications are very clear and unambiguous and, therefore, should have been so interpreted by the lower authorities. The ld. Counsel submits that since the notifications are clear in their language and no different interpretation can be applied to the language and, therefore, the appellants have rightly taken Modvat credit and prays that the appeal may be allowed.
2. Shri Jangir Singh, the ld. JDR appearing for the respondent Commissioner, submits that registration of the Depots was the requirement. Since the Depots were not registered, therefore, the lower authorities have rightly denied them Modvat credit on the strength of the invoices issued by the Depot of M/s. IPCL.
3. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that Notification No. 15/94 as well as 32/94, inter alia, requires that 'the Central Government hereby prescribes the invoices issued by a Manufacturer or his Factory or Depot.' Thus Depot is one of the recognised units whose invoices shall be accepted. From these notifications we do not find any requirement of registration of Depots. There is no dispute that the invoices in the instant case were not issued by a Depot. Since the admitted position is that the invoices were issued by Depots and the invoices issued by such Depots are recognised as units in terms of both the notifications, we hold that Modvat credit has rightly been taken by the Appellants. In the result, the Appeal is allowed and consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.