2002 (12) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal affirms Modvat credit for goods marked 'Not for sale' invoices

COMMR. OF C. EX., TRICHY Versus HENKEL SPIC (I) LTD.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the respondents to avail Modvat credit based on invoices marked 'Not for sale.' ... Modvat/Cenvat - Invoice Issues:1. Availment of Modvat credit on the basis of invoices marked 'Not for sale.'2. Interpretation of the explanation to Notification No. 14/95 regarding the issuance of invoices for the sale of goods.3. Eligibility of Modvat credit based on documents marked 'A/c M/s. IPL, Mumbai.'Analysis:Issue 1: Availment of Modvat credit on the basis of invoices marked 'Not for sale.'The appeals involved a dispute regarding the availment of Modvat credit by the respondents based on invoices marked 'Not for sale.' The Commissioner of Central Excise had set aside the original orders disallowing the credit, holding that the availment of Modvat credit on such invoices was correct. The Revenue contended that since the invoices were marked as 'Not for sale,' the respondents were not eligible for Modvat credit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeals of the respondents, leading to the Revenue filing an appeal against this decision.Issue 2: Interpretation of the explanation to Notification No. 14/95 regarding the issuance of invoices for the sale of goods.The core issue revolved around the interpretation of the explanation to Notification No. 14/95, which prescribed an invoice as a document issued by a registered person 'for sale of goods.' The Revenue argued that the Modvat credit availed by the respondents based on documents marked 'A/c M/s. IPL, Mumbai' was not permissible under Rule 57GG. The Revenue emphasized that the invoices must be issued for the sale of goods, and since the documents were marked 'Not for sale,' the respondents were ineligible for Modvat credit according to the notification.Issue 3: Eligibility of Modvat credit based on documents marked 'A/c M/s. IPL, Mumbai.'The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and noted that similar issues had been previously decided in favor of the assessee by the Commissioner (Appeals), with those orders attaining finality. The Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue did not challenge the details on the invoices prescribed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the duty paid nature of the goods was not under challenge. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue appeals, holding that there was no merit in the Revenue's contentions based on the interpretation of the notification and the marking of the invoices as 'Not for sale.'