QUEST INTERNATIONAL INDIA Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 20 appeals are against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying modvat credit taken by the assessee the appellant on various grounds.

(2.) WE shall deal with the each of the ground separately.

(3.) IN ten notices, the ground for denying it was that the invoices which were issued by the appellant for movement of goods from its godown to its factory were lacking prescribed details under Notification 32/94, 33/94. Notification 32/94 prescribes the category of persons who could issue invoices under Notification 33/94. By Notification 33/94 the Central Excise rules were amended to incorporate Rule 57GG about invoke number. This rule does not prescribe the details of the invoices but provides in Sub -rule (4) for such details to be prescribed by the Board or the Commissioner. Apart from this inaccuracy, none of the notices indicate what particulars, which were lacking in the invoices in question. A reading of copies of couple of such invoices No. 474 dt. 29.8.1994, No. 475 dt. 30.8.1994 does not show absence of any particulars. We were assured by the advocate of the appellants that these particulars are found to be in each of the invoice. The Departmental Representative argument's that a person cannot issue an invoice to himself is ingineous (sic) but not relevant, in view of total absence if any such allegation in the notice itself. Neither the Assistant Commissioner, nor the Commissioner (Appeals) who go into this aspect at all. Commissioner (Appeals) order is also entirely silent on the credit of the particulars lacking in the invoices. Denial sketch of credit cannot be sustained.