JAY PEE AUTO PLAST Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held - -

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of plastic moulded parts of motor vehicle and two wheelers and were availing modvat credit of duty paid on inputs. During the period 6.1.97 to 9.7.97 the appellant availed credit of Rs. 10,01,674 on the strength of 33 proforma invoices issued by M/s. Escort Yamaha Motors Ltd. On a document in which on top was printed" invoice/proforma invoice/stock transfer advice/branch transfer invoices and wherein 'proforma invoice' was ticked. The Department alleged that proforma invoice was not the prescribed document on the strength of which the modvat credit could be taken. They accordingly, issued Show -cause notice on this count alongwith other objections. The objection that remained surviving was in respect of these 33 invoices.

(3.) Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants (s) submits that the goods had been cleared under Rule 52A on payment of duty; that copies of these invoices had been filed with the Jurisdictional Range Office; that such invoices contained all the particulars as per law; that Modvat credit was taken after receipt of the goods in the factory; that in the circumstances, the credit was not deniable. Learned Counsel submits that proforma invoices in dispute were pre -authenticated, were assigned serial numbers, were marked 'Duplicate for Transporter'; that they show the date and time of issue of removal of goods and vehicle number; that particulars of payment of duty with reference to the debit entries are indicated in the proforma invoices; that all the particulars required in terms of Rule 52A were indicated in the invoices.