SHIVALIK AGRO CHEMICALS Vs. CCE, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal filed by M/s Shivalik Agro Chemicals, Mohali ('M/s Shivalik' for short), the matter relates to the modvat credit of Rs 3,68,658.03 availed of on the basis of alleged defective/non -prescribed documents. The modvat credit was required to be taken on the strength of the duplicate copy of the invoice which was meant for transporter. M/s Shivalik had taken modvat credit on the strength of original copy of the invoices. Further, requisite particulars were not entered into the invoices. In some cases the dealer had not got himself registered with the Department.

(2.) THE matter was heard on 13.3.2001 when Shri Sandeep Singh, advocate, appearing for M/s Shivalik submitted that the requisite particulars that were missing from the invoices at the time of taking the credit, were given subsequently. The dealer had also got himself registered with the Department subsequently. As regards availing of credit on original copy of the invoices, it was his submission that the appellants had in their possession duplicate copies of the invoices also. He prayed that the discrepancies were of technical nature and that the substantive benefit of modvat credit should not be denied on technical grounds. In reply, Shri A.K. Jain, DR, submitted that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had given clear findings and had analysed the matter on the basis of the legal provisions. The modvat credit has to be taken on the strength of prescribed documents. Any information sought to be given subsequently to cover up the deficiencies in the earlier documents will not meet the requirement of law. The modvat credit had been taken on the strength of irregular invoices and that there was no case for any leniency in this matter. He relied upon the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, New Delhi vs Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (117) ELT 571 (T -LB).

(3.) I have carefully considered the matter. M/s Shivalik were engaged in the manufacture of pesticides. They were availing of the benefit of modvat credit. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 28.12.1994 that they had wrongly availed of the benefit of modvat in some cases in contravention of the relevant rules in this regard. In cases where inputs were said to have been obtained from the manufacturers, modvat credit was allowable only on the strength of duplicate copy of the invoices which were the transporters copies. M/s Shivalik had taken a credit of Rs 6,175.75 on the basis of the documents which were not the duplicate copies of the invoices, even when the inputs were said to have been received from the manufacturers. The requirements under which credit could be allowed by the proper officer on a copy of the invoice other than the duplicate copy were not met by the appellants. The argument that the appellants were in the possession of duplicate copies also is of no avail if the credit had not been taken on their strength. Such an argument, in fact, shows conscious disregard of the provisions of the law. If such a plea is allowed, then it will lead to malpractices as when the discrepancies come to light, the assessee could take conveniently such a plea.