BALAJI STEEL TUBES AND PIPES LTD Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals. Since the issue for determination in these two appeals is same, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE issue is whether Modvat credit can be taken on the strength of invoices/challans which do not bear the details of manufacturer with complete address, address of Central Excise Range Division and Collectorate, Invoice No., Date and time of issue, total quantity, value rate and amount of duty covered under such invoice. The Department alleged that since these particulars were not disclosed by the appellants, therefore, Modvat credit was wrongly taken on the strength of these incomplete invoices.

(3.) SHRI R. Santhanam, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants received inputs from M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and their stock yards under their challan/invoice. He submits that most of the particulars required in terms of Notification No. 33/94 -CE(NT) dated 4.7.94 were available in the invoices. He submitted that whatever particulars more were required by the Department, they were furnished later on. He submits that furnishing of full particulars is a curable defect which could be rectified later on. He submits that particulars were required to be furnished in the invoices/challans issued by Steel Authority of India Ltd. He submits that Steel Authority of India Ltd. is a Public -sector Undertaking and the Govt. had been issuing instructions that invoices issued by Public -sector Undertakings may be accepted for purpose of taking credit of duty paid on inputs under the Modvat scheme. He submits that the appellants were getting the invoice under Sub -rule 2(ii) of Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules. It was a manufacturer's invoice from his depot. He submits that in their case the manufacturer were the iron and steel plant of Govt. of India and the invoice was issued by their stock yard at Kanpur. He submits that under Rule 57H invoice issued by a manufacturer from his depot was the valid document for the purpose of taking Modvat credit. He refers to the circular of the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued from file F. No. 267/50/ 94 -CX.8 and submits that in para 5 it was clarified that the invoice issued by a manufacturer from his depot is a duty paying document if it contains details as referred to in Notification No. 15/94 -CE(NT) and Notification No. 21 /94 -CE(NT). The Asstt. Commissioner shall recognise such document if issued by the categories of persons mentioned in the said notification who have got themselves registered under Rule 55GG of the Central Excise Rules consequent to issue of Notification No. 32/94 -CE(NT) dated 2.7.94. The CBEC in para 6 of its above letter further clarified that the document prescribed above by the Central Board of Excise and Customs could be accepted by the Asstt. Commissioner only upto 31.12.94. In other words any document issued by the registered person prior to such registration would be acceptable if he is eligible to issue invoice/document under Notification No. 15/94 -CE(NT) and Notification No. 21/94 -CE(NT). He submitted that from the above clarification it was very clear that the appellants had correctly taken Modvat credit on the strength of challans -cum -invoices issued by the Steel Authority of India. Ld. Counsel pointed out that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had held: