COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SHREE SYNTHETICS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order -in -appeal vide which the Commissioned (Appeals) has reversed the order -in -original and allowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,55,105/ - to the respondents.

(2.) None has come on behalf of the respondents although notice for today's hearing was issued to them on 19 -7 -2004. They have also made no request for adjournment. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.

(3.) From the perusal of the record, I find that Modvat credit of above said amount has been availed by the respondents on the cash memo/invoices of M/s. IIPCL and M/s. Hindustan CIBA Geigy Ltd. which did not contain the necessary details required under Rule 52 -A of the Rules. The adjudicating authority recorded detailed findings regarding the status of both the companies who issued the cash memos/invoices to the respondents. According to that authority, M/s. IIPCL acted as a dealer of M/s. IOC while M/s. Hindustan CIBA Geigy Ltd. acted as a dealer of the imported goods. But in the documents issued by both the companies, neither the details of the manufacturer /importer nor regarding the debit of the duty paid on those goods, were recorded. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not disputed these findings of the adjudicating authority. The view taken by him is that it is well settled that for procedural irregularities, Modvat credit is not to be denied to the assessee. He has also referred to the CBEC Circular No. 11/7/99 -CX., dated 23 -2 -1999 in that regard also, but in my view, the view taken by him is totally erroneous in law. The non -mention of the details as required under Rule 52 -A particularly of the duty element and the details of the goods and their Tariff Heading/sub -heading and their authentication by the manufacturer/supplier of the goods cannot be treated as a procedural lapse/irregularity so as to allow Modvat credit on the strength of such documents to an assessee. The ratio of law laid down in M/s. Chamundi Steel Rerolling Mills v. CCE reported in [1996 (81) E.L.T. 563)], Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd [2001 (136) E.L.T. 1071], U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (137) E.L.T. 1029] and CCE Mangalore v. Mangalore Refinery and Petro Chemicals [2002 (150) E.L.T. 114] relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has got no application to the case of the respondents in the light of the facts detailed above. In all those cases, the Tribunal has only taken the view that for non -filing of declaration and for other minor lapses, the Modvat credit is not to be denied to an assessee. But in the instant case, as observed, the lapses cannot be termed as minor lapses/irregularities. The documents on the strength of which respondents have taken the Modvat credit did not satisfy the basic requirements of Rule 52A of the Rules and as such, no Modvat credit can be allowed to the respondents for such lapses. That being so, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained and is set aside. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.