JAY INDUSTRIAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants manufactured Iron and Steel products and availed modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Patiala vide his order dated 30.8.98 disallowed modvat credit availed by appellants on the strength of two invoices issued in their favour by M/s Amarjit Enterprises - -a registered dealer of iron and steel products. These invoices were issued on the strength of invoices issued by M/s SAIL from their depot at Mandi Gobindgarh. The Assistant Commissioner in his order observed that the dealer issued these invoices by incorporating the particulars of depot invoices were missing altogether. It is observed that though the party during the adjudication proceedings submitted particulars of originating invoices by way of self certified certificates but particulars in this case were also incomplete in as much as invoice No. of originating invoice was missing and these certificates are essentially supported by the copies of SAIL Depot invoices but these depot invoices do not contain any certificate from SAIL authorities regarding discharge of duty. Similarly modvat credit on the other four invoices issued by the registered dealer m/s Khullar Enterprises is also denied. The total amount of modvat credit denied to the appellants on this ground is Rs. 1,04,982.16. A penalty of Rs. 10,00/ - is also imposed on the party

(2.) The party filed an appeal but the same stood rejected by the order dated 13.3.2000 issued by Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. The Commissioner (Appeals) however, set aside the penalty of rs. 10,000/ -. This is the second stage appeal by the party. I have heard Shri K.K. Anand, advocate for the appellants and Shri V.K. Verma, JDR for the respondents. I have considered the submissions made before me. The grounds on which the modvat credit availed by the appellants on the strength of the invoices issued by the dealers of M/s SAIL is denied is that such invoice did not contain the particulars of originating invoices under which the duty was paid by the manufacturer. It is admitted in the Order -in -Original that these particulars though were furnished at the time of personal hearing but these have not been accepted by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the same could not be reconciled. It is well known that iron and steel products are received at the SAIL depots through wagon loads or road transport which are accompanied by the duty paying invoices issued by the concerned steel plants. The SAIL depots are registered as dealers under Rule 57GG. The products are further issued to different dealers under the invoices of the SAIL depots and if the SAIL depots are certifying the particulars of payment of duty at the steel plants, the same should be accepted for the purpose of Notification 15/94 -C.E. (NT) dated 30.3.94. There is no reason given in the orders of the lower authorities as to why the same are not acceptable.

(3.) IN view of the above, I find no warrant to deny the modvat credit to the appellants. I therefore, allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.