MODVAT credit cannot be denied for classificatory mismatch or without fair verification of resumed records

MODVAT credit could not be denied solely because original duty-paying documents were not produced when the assessee pleaded that the records had been resumed by the department; the matter was remanded for fresh verification after allowing correlation with RG-23A entries. MODVAT credit also could not be refused merely because the supplier's gate passes showed a different sub-heading, where the inputs were otherwise covered by Chapter 72 and the notification and the difference was only classificatory. The demand on that ground was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether credit could be denied for want of original duty-paying documents without affording opportunity to examine the resumed records; (ii) whether MODVAT credit could be denied merely because the supplier's gate passes showed a different sub-heading, though the inputs fell within Chapter 72 and were otherwise covered by the notification.

Issue (i): whether credit could be denied for want of original duty-paying documents without affording opportunity to examine the resumed records.

Analysis: The demand was based on alleged non-production of original duty-paying documents required for availing MODVAT credit. The record showed that the appellants had specifically pleaded that the relevant gate passes and records had been resumed by the department and were available with it. Since the appellants were not given an opportunity to examine the resumed documents and correlate them with the RG-23A entries, the adjudication was incomplete and unfair.

Conclusion: The demand on this count was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration.

Issue (ii): whether MODVAT credit could be denied merely because the supplier's gate passes showed a different sub-heading, though the inputs fell within Chapter 72 and were otherwise covered by the notification.

Analysis: The relevant notification granted MODVAT credit to inputs falling under Chapter 72. There was no dispute that the inputs received and used by the appellants were the same as those declared, and the only objection was a difference in sub-heading shown in the gate passes and in the declaration. As the inputs were otherwise covered by the notification and the difference was only classificatory, denial of credit on that ground alone was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The demand on this count was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the substantive credit issue and failed only to the extent of remand on the document-verification issue, leaving the assessee with relief on both demands but one matter requiring fresh adjudication.

---