COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD Vs. SATYEN DYES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that has come up for consideration is whether non -mention of printed serial number in the invoices will disentitle the assessees to claim modvat credit or not. The reference was necessitated in view of the conflicting views expressed by different Benches.

(2.) This issue arising in a different manner was considered by us in appeal No. E/3330/99 -Mumbai also on reference. There the question was whether the numbering of the invoice could be by stamping from a franking machine in order to satisfy the requirements under the provisions contained in Rule 52 -A(6) of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), 1944. After an elaborate consideration of the different views expressed by different Benches and on examination of the relevant provisions of law, we came to the conclusion that if the serial numbers are stamped from a franking machine or stamping machine or typed by typewriter it is sufficient compliance with the rules. Since there is an elaborate consideration of the decided cases in the above order, we do not propose to go into all those decisions again in this order.

(3.) THIS is an appeal at the instance of Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16.11.99 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein. The respondent herein is engaged in the manufacture of S.O. Dye falling under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing modvat facilities prescribed under Section AA of Chapter V of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They have taken credit on their inputs Soda Ash during the period from Sept. 1994 to January 1995 on the basis of invoices issued by traders/dealers who are having Central Excise registration for the purpose of trading. The original manufacturer of Soda Ash is M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd., Mithapur. It was alleged that the invoices issued by the traders/dealers contained certain discrepancies as they were not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 57 -GG read with Rule 52 -A of the Rules. On some of the invoices the serial numbers were not printed but written in handwriting and in some of the invoices 'duplicate for transporter' was not marked. In the show cause notice issued to the respondent herein there were certain other allegations also about which we are not concerned in this appeal. The original authority held that since the invoices did not contain printed serial numbers, credit amounting to Rs. 29,467.30 is to be disallowed as they are not in accordance with Rules. On the basis of Notification No. 2/95 (NT) dated 19.1.95 the original authority further held that credit amounting to Rs. 11,703.78 is to be disallowed on the invoices issued after 19.1.95 not bearing the words 'duplicate for transporter' printed on them. Aggrieved with the above order, the respondents herein filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals). The appellate authority relying on certain decisions of this Tribunal took the view that since the assessee had complied with the substantial requirements of the Modvat Scheme, any procedural irregularities like serial numbers not being printed or 'duplicate for transporter' not marked on invoices would not disentitle the assessee for taking modvat credit. The appellate authority has noted that it is an admitted fact that the inputs have been received in the factory of production under the cover of duty paying documents and the same have been used in the manufacture of the final product. On receipt of the inputs in the factory of production the same have been entered into the statutory records of Central Excise and the relevant invoices have also been defaced by the jurisdictional Range Superintendents. It is on this basis, he has come to the conclusion that the appellants had complied with the substantial requirements of the Modvat Scheme.