RAJINDER ENGG. WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of five invoices issued by registered dealers of input manufacturers, the appellants took Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 62,448/ - on certain inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules during the period October to December 1994. Department proposed to disallow the credit so taken, alleging that the invoices did not contain full particulars prescribed in the proforma annexed to Notification No. 33/94 -CE. (N.T.), dated 4 -7 -1994. The party contested the Department's stand. The dispute was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. During the adjudication proceedings, the party produced certificates from the dealers stating additional particulars of manufacturer's invoices. The Additional Commissioner considered such additional particulars and, after hearing the party, passed order confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 62,448/ - under Rule 57 -1. In the appeal, filed by the party against the order of the Additional Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the order of the adjudicating authority after holding that it was a substantial requirement of law rather than a procedural/technical one on the part of the appellants to establish the duty paid character of the inputs in respect of which the credit was taken. Present appeal is against this order of Commissioner (Appeals).

(2.) I have carefully examined the orders of the both the lower authorities and connected records. I have also heard ld. Advocate, Shri J.P. Kaushik for the appellants and ld. JDR Shri A.K. Jain for the Revenue.

(3.) LD . Advocate has drawn my attention to the contents of the dealer's certificates which had been produced before the adjudicating authority for establishing that all legal requirements had been fulfilled by the party for availment of the credit. I have perused these documents and I find that the particulars stated in these certificates are enough to make up the deficiency (if any) of particulars on the subject invoices. One of the grounds on which the lower authorities have held the subject invoices to be unacceptable is that the assessable value of the goods was not stated in the dealer's certificates produced by the party. None of the authorities has a case that the rate of duty and the amount of duty were not stated in the dealer's certificates produced by the party. The stand taken by the lower authorities that the assessable value of the goods had to be stated is not supported by any provision of law. I also note that the lower appellate authority has found an "additional shortcoming" in the invoice mentioned against Sl. No. 4 in the annexure to the show cause notice. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the rate of duty and the amount of duty stated in the dealer's certificates do not tally with the respective figures in the invoice. Ld. Advocate has drawn my attention to the invoice and the certificate in question. I find that the certificate mentioned the amount of duty paid on a larger quantity of the inputs, out of which a smaller quantity was purchased by the appellants from the dealers. In such cases there is no question of tallying of amounts of duty in the dealer's invoice and the corresponding manufacturer's invoice. The shortcoming found by the lower appellate authority is no shortcoming either on facts or in law, according to ld. Advocate. Ld. Advocate has also submitted that the show cause notice had not specified as to which particular information was missing in the invoices. Therefore, the findings of the lower authorities are beyond the scope of the show cause notice. In support of this submission, ld. Advocate has cited the decision of the Tribunal in the following cases: -