PUNJAB CONCAST STEELS Vs. CCE CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, filed by M/s Punjab Concast Steels, the issue involved is whether Modvat Credit under Rule 57A of the Cental Excise Rules was available to them on the strength of the invoice issued by dealers without mentioning the rate of duty and amount of duty in words and on the basis of invoice issued by unregistered dealer.

(2.) SHRI Kulvinder Singh, ld. Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants availed of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs on the strength of invoices issued byu various wholesale dealers during July and August, 1994; that all the dealers except M/s BDA Steels Ltd,, got themselves registered with the Department in the month of July 1994 itself; that he is not pressing the prayer for allowing Modvat Credit on the strength of invoices issued by M/s BDA Steels Ltd as they did not get themselves registered with the Department. He then submitted that the Assistant Commissioner had examined the invoices which clearly contained the particulars as required under Notification No. 15/945 -C.E. (N.T.) dt.30 -3 -94; that the credit had been disallowed on the sole ground that invoices did not contain the rate and amount of duty in words also as required under the said Notification; that rate and amount of duty had been mentioned in figures; that as held in Algis Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Aurangabad, 1999(106) ELT 492 (T), the Modvat Credit is not disallowable even it the duty paying documents lack in certain particulars which are curable and there is no dispute about the inputs having been received. He also mentioned that Modvat Credit had also been disallowed in certain cases on the ground that the quantity was not mentioned; that once the dealer had given the details of invoice no. and particulars of payment of duty was not disputed, such procedural lapses which could be verified by the Department should not be a ground to disallow Modvat Credit. He finally submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had gone beyond the scope of the show -cause notice and Adjudication Order, in holding that copies of invoices issued by manufacturers to dealers were not available to substantiate the missing particulars and to verify the fact of having passed on the correct amount of duty; that it was not necessary for them to produce those invoices and in any case, it was required under law for the registered dealer to send the invoices for verification at the end of the month and no show -cause notice had been issued to the dealers for wrongly passing of Modvat Credit.

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments Shri M.D.Singh Ld. S.D.R., submitted that Notification No. 15/94 (NT) clearly provided that the invoice should contain the rate and the amount of duty both in words and figures; that as the rate and amount of duty were not mentioned in words, the conditions specified in Notification has not been complied with and accordingly the Modvat credit was not admissible to them. He relied upon the decision of he Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE Kanpur, 2000(116) ELT 364 and CCE New Delhi Vs. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd 2000(117) ELT 571 wherein it was held that insistence of documents evidencing payment of duty on inputs as prescribed by Rules is not a technicality to be complied with for availing Modvat Credit and that when a particular thing is directed to be performed in a manner prescribed by Rules, it should be performed in that manner itself.