CCE Vs. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMACEUTICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference application filed by the Revenue in terms of the final order No. 321/99 allowing the appellants' appeal on the ground that invoices which did not bear any pre -printed/printed serial number but serial number was handwritten could be considered for the purpose of grant of Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules. While doing so, the Tribunal held that the said violation to be a procedural lapse and for such lapse, Modvat credit cannot be denied. It applied the ratio of earlier judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Nezon Tubes Ltd. as reported in and that of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CCE as reported in, 1999 (80) ECR 26.

(2.) THE Revenue contended in this reference application that in terms of Sub -rule (6) of Rule 52A, the invoices should bear pre -printed/printed serial numbers and it is not a procedural violation but it is a mandatory violation, hence the matter is required to be referred to the High Court with the following question:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel submits that the matter did not arise under Sub -rule (6) of Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules but arise under Rule 57GG and he contended that with regard to this violation under Rule 57GG, the Tribunal had already held that it is a procedural and technical violation. The said view has been upheld by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. as reported in , therefore, there is no question of law arises for, reference to the High Court.