CCE Vs. SUPREME PLASTICS INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the validity of the invoices marked by rubber stamp as 'duplicate' for availing modvat credit. The respondents, M/s. Supreme Plastics Industries were registered with the Central Excise Department for the manufacture of the excisable goods chargeable to duty. They were availing the benefit of modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of their final products under Rule 157A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). They had availed of the benefit of Modvat Credit of Rs. 19,468/ - on the strength of the invoices which did not have the impression "duplicate for transporter" pre -printed. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) relying upon the Tribunal's decision observed that there was not justification to deny the modvat credit only on the ground that the marking as "duplicate for transporter" had been done by stamping and not by printing. In appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that the circular No. -CX dated 13.2.1995 provided that the in -voices were required to be pre -printed with the marking "duplicate for transporter", for the purposes of availing the modvat credit. It has also been pleaded that undue relaxation of statutory requirements by quasi -judicial authority was not permissible because these authorities have not been vested with any such powers and that the power to relax procedural requirements vested with the Central Government or Central Board of Excise & Customs. It has been further pleaded that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) being subordinate authority should not have decided the appeal over -ruling the Board's circular.

(2.) ON 8.9.1998, I have heard Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR for the appellants/Revenue. Shri N. Bajaj, C.A. represented the respondents, M/s. Supreme Plastic Industries.

(3.) THE Circular No. /CX dated 13.2.1995 prescribed the procedure to be followed by the registered persons i.e. the persons issuing invoices under Rule 57G of the Rules. Although the Board's Circular provided that the description -original/duplicate/triplicate/quadruplicate were required to be preprinted, I find that in the relevant Rule at the relevant time the requirement was that the copies of the invoices shall be marked at the top in bold capital letters in the manner given above.