UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revenue's appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 11-8-2006 of the Northern Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') has been admitted on following substantial questions of law :-

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case as projected in the Order-in-Appealpassed by the Commissioner (Appeals), are that the respondent availed input Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 22,81,835/- and Rs. 30,57,032/- on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vishak-hapatnam (in short "the supplier") during the months of November, 1995, September, 1995 and January, 1996. Eight show-cause notices were issued by the Revenue for disallowing credit on the ground detailed in the notices, and the Adjudicating Authority disallowed credit amounting to Rs. 15,67,942/- on the invoices dated 6-8-1995,10-6-1995 and 9-7-1995 and Rs. 6,74,209/- on the invoice dated 29-6-1995, and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order 13th January, 2004 (Annexure A/6) dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Shri Bhishma Kinger, learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue would argue that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order on the basis of amendment in Rule 57G and in view of the Circular dated 22-3-1999 issued by the Central Board of Customs and Excise (for brevity "Board"). However, the provisions relied upon by the Tribunal also stipulate that "wherever the Assistant Commissioner, after making due enquiry, is satisfied that the Modvat credit taken by the assessee is incorrect, adjudication proceedings in the normal course should be initiated." On verification of the documents submitted by the respondent, it was found that the supplier did not submit the subject invoices along with their monthly return and the details of the goods received and sold were not entered in RG-23D Register, as informed by the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer of the supplier vide letter dated 9-8-1999. The respondent was furnished with the copy of the letter dated 9-8-1999 received from the Superintendent of Central Excise Range, ID, Rajendra Nagar at the appellate stage, however, no evidence was adduced by the respondent to counter the version of the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, it was held that the documents furnished by the respondent-assessee were improper and not valid documents for availing duty of credit under the Modvat Scheme.