Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. British Scaffolding (I) Ltd. vs Cce Jaipur on 18 January, 2001
ORDER
P.S. Bajaj
1. The appellants have filed this appeal against the order in appeal dated 24.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who affirmed the order in original of the deputy Commissioner dated 27.8.99 disallowing them modvat credit on the invoices in question on the ground that these were not valid and proper documents under the law.
2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of shuttering and allied products. They claimed modvat credit under Rule 57-A of the Rules on the strength of disputed six invoices Nos. .09 dated 16.4.96 of Rs. 33,415/-, 42 dated 10.6.96 of Rs. 43,962/-, 63 dated 5.7.96 of Rs. 45,135/-, 64 dated 9.7.96 of Rs. 44,818/-, 70 dated 19.7.96 of Rs. 45,345/- and 75 dated 20.7.96 of Rs 48,981/-, but only first two invoices bore rubber stamp of 'Duplicate for transporter' while the other did not. The appellants were issued show cause notice for the recovery of the amount as the modvat credit on these invoices was no available to them under the law being not valid documents. After getting their reply the Deputy Commissioner through order in original disallowed the modvat credit to the extent of R. 1,84,279/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 50000/- on the appellants.
3. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order in appeal.
4. I have heard and gone through the record.
5. Admittedly, the invoices in question were issued under Rule 52-A by the manufacture of the goods. The duty paid character of the goods covered by these invoices remained undisputed as this aspect even had not been denied by the authorities below in their orders. In fact, the duty paid nature of the goods covered by these invoices as well as authenticity of the invoices, was got verified by the competent authority through the Range Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer of the goods.
6. The modvat credit has been disallowed to the appellants on the ground out of these invoices, the first two bore only rubber stamp "duplicate for transporter" while the others did not. But, as observed above, the inputs covered by these invoices were duly duty paid and this aspect was even got verified from the Range Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the goods were never received in the factory premises of the appellants and were also not utilised. Therefore, under these circumstances on a technical lapse on the pre-printing of the requisite marking "duplicate for transporter" on the invoices, the modvat credit could not be denied to the invoices, the modvat credit could not be denied to the appellants. In this context, reference may be made to the ratio of the law laid down by the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise & Customs Vs. Amal Rasayan Ltd. 1993 (68) ELT 446 and Siya Ram Platex (P) Ltd. Vs.CCE Jaipur, 1994 (73) ELT 915 wherein it has been observed that substantive benefit of modvat credit cannot be disallowed to the assessee on the technical defects in the invoices when the duty paid character of the goods covered therein was fully proved.
7. Even Rule 57-G (10) (11) of the Central Excise Rules also clearly enacts that credit shall not be denied on the ground that any of the documents mentioned in sub-rule (3), did not contain all the particulars required to be contained therein under these rules, if such documents contain details of payments of duty, description of the goods, assessable value, name and address of the factory or warehouse. The rule has to be applied to all pending cases, as per Board's circular No. 441/7/89-VX dated 23.2.99 and the decision of the Larger Bench in Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Meerut 2000 (40) RLT 575. All these particulars were mentioned in the disputed invoices and as such modvat credit could not be denied to the appellants simply on the ground that they did not carry the words "duplicate for transporter" properly.
8. In view of the discussion made above, it must be held that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of modvat credit of the disputed amount on the strength of invoices in question. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal of the appellants is accepted with consequential relief, if any permissible under the law.