Excise credit and revised show cause notice rules: PLA credit needs proper challan deposit, valid duty documents, and a later notice may stand.

PLA credit could be taken only after prior deposit through the prescribed TR-6 challan, and a refund claim could not bypass that statutory procedure; the appellant's contrary plea was rejected. Modvat credit in RG-23A Part II was allowable only on a recognised duty-paying document, so self-issued supplementary invoices were not valid documents and the challenge failed. A later show cause notice was not invalid merely because an earlier notice on the same issue had been issued, since the earlier notice was incomplete and the revised notice superseded it within the statutory time limit. The demand and penalty were sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether credit in PLA could be availed without deposit through TR-6 challan. (ii) Whether modvat credit in RG-23A Part II could be taken on the strength of supplementary invoices issued by the appellant itself. (iii) Whether the subsequent show cause notice was invalid because an earlier notice on the same issue had already been issued.

Issue (i): Whether credit in PLA could be availed without deposit through TR-6 challan.

Analysis: PLA credit requires prior deposit of the amount into the Government treasury through the prescribed challan. Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 contemplates credit entry in PLA only after such deposit, and a claim of refund cannot justify bypassing that statutory procedure. The appellant, being a registered manufacturer, was bound to follow the regular refund route if excess duty had been paid.

Conclusion: Credit in PLA could not be availed without TR-6 challan and the appellant's plea was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether modvat credit in RG-23A Part II could be taken on the strength of supplementary invoices issued by the appellant itself.

Analysis: Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits credit only on the basis of a recognised duty paying document. Supplementary invoices issued by the appellant to itself do not constitute duty paying documents within the meaning of the rule. The plea of provisional assessment also failed because no provisional assessment had been resorted to under the excise law.

Conclusion: Modvat credit on self-issued supplementary invoices was not permissible and the appellant's challenge failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the subsequent show cause notice was invalid because an earlier notice on the same issue had already been issued.

Analysis: The earlier notice did not contain the complete demand and the later notice superseded it after review of the facts. The law permits amendment, withdrawal, or substitution of a notice and does not bar a revised notice where the proceedings remain within the statutory time limit. The challenge to the notice also lacked supporting evidence.

Conclusion: The subsequent show cause notice was valid and the appellant's objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order confirming demand and penalty was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit under excise law can be taken only in the manner prescribed by the relevant rules, including deposit through the proper challan for PLA and reliance on a valid duty paying document for modvat credit, and a revised show cause notice is not invalid merely because an earlier notice on the same matter existed.

---