SUPERPACK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case are briefly stated as below.

(2.) THE appellants were engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP woven bags falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing the Modvat credit facility in respect of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the relevant period. In August, 1994, they took Modvat credit of the central excise duty paid on steel tubes on the strength of invoices on which the invoice numbers were not pre -printed but computer -printed. The Department did not accept such availment of Modvat credit and hence, issued show cause notice to the party alleging that the steel tubes would not be acceptable as capital goods for purposes of taking the credit under Rule 57Q ibid and that the invoices without pre -printed numbers would not be acceptable as valid duty paying document for the purpose of such credit, and asking the party to show cause why the duty amount of Rs. 35,664/ - (credit whereof was taken as above) should not be recovered under Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants contested the department's view in their reply to the show -cause notice. The dispute was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, who disallowed the entire credit of duty of Rs. 35,664/ - taken on the steel tubes on the strength of the invoices in question. In the appeal filed against the order of adjudication, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the lower authority's order. Hence, the present appeal before trie Tribunal.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel Shri Pragyan Sharma for the appellants. There is no appearance or representation for the respondent -Revenue. I have also carefully examined the orders of both the lower authorities and connected records of the case.