2004 (9) TMI 5 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies Modvat credit due to improper invoice use

AMAR FORGINGS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

The Tribunal upheld the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 30,060.88 to the appellant due to the improper use of an extra invoice copy, which was ... Credit – assessee contend that duplicate copy was lost in accident- no such proof on the record - moreover, even if it is assumed for sake of argument that the driver died in the accident, the appellants could seek permission from the department for taking credit on the original copy of the invoice but they didn’t do so – credit taken on extra copy of the invoice is not justified Issues:Denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 30,060.88 to the appellant.Analysis:1. Issue of Modvat Credit Denial:The appeal was filed against the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 30,060.88. The appellant availed the credit on an extra copy of the invoice, which was deemed impermissible under the law. The argument presented by the appellant's counsel regarding the loss of the duplicate copy due to a fatal accident involving the truck driver was not substantiated with concrete evidence. The absence of an FIR related to the accident further weakened the appellant's case. Even if the driver's demise occurred as claimed, the appellants were expected to obtain permission from the department to claim credit using the original invoice copy, not the extra one. A precedent cited by the appellant's counsel was deemed inapplicable to the current scenario due to the lack of evidence supporting the loss of both original and duplicate copies during transit. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and upheld its decision, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.2. Decision and Dismissal:After considering both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of Modvat credit was justified based on the improper utilization of an extra invoice copy. The lack of verifiable evidence supporting the appellant's claim regarding the lost duplicate copy due to a fatal accident led to the rejection of the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal requirements when claiming credits and emphasized the necessity of providing substantial proof to substantiate claims. As a result, the appeal of the appellants was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld by the Tribunal.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi highlights the key issues, arguments, and the ultimate decision rendered in the case involving the denial of Modvat credit to the appellant.