1998 (11) TMI 212 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal recognizes SAIL's document for Modvat credit, setting aside impugned order.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, recognizing M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.'s (SAIL) challan-cum-certificate as a valid duty paying ... Modvat - Duty paying documents Issues:1. Validity of the challan-cum-certificate of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) as a duty paying document.2. Applicability of judgment pertaining to Rule 56A and gate pass to SAIL's certificate.3. Denial of Modvat credit due to deficiency in the duty paying document.4. Permissibility of multiple endorsements on SAIL's delivery challan-cum-invoice.5. Interpretation of Board Circular of 1989 regarding endorsements on SAIL's documents.Issue 1: Validity of SAIL's Challan-cum-Certificate:The appellant sought validation of SAIL's challan-cum-certificate as a duty paying document. The Asstt. Collector initially accepted it, noting the full consignment received by the appellant with no dispute on duty payment. However, the Commissioner set aside this decision, citing non-applicability of previous judgments. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, citing established case laws recognizing SAIL's document as valid for Modvat credit.Issue 2: Applicability of Previous Judgments:The Commissioner distinguished previous judgments regarding gate passes and Rule 56A, claiming they did not apply to the current case involving SAIL's certificate. However, the Tribunal disagreed, citing specific cases where SAIL's documents with multiple endorsements were deemed valid duty paying documents, thus upholding the appellant's contention.Issue 3: Denial of Modvat Credit:The department objected to the Modvat credit availed by the appellant based on SAIL's document, citing the Board Circular of 1989 allowing only one endorsement. The Tribunal found no dispute on the receipt and usage of inputs for final products, emphasizing that minor procedural infractions should not disallow substantive benefits under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules.Issue 4: Permissibility of Multiple Endorsements:The main objection raised was the endorsement of SAIL's document more than once, contrary to the Board Circular. The Tribunal referenced various case laws where multiple endorsements on SAIL's documents were accepted as valid duty paying documents for Modvat credit, emphasizing the importance of establishing duty payment and usage of goods.Issue 5: Interpretation of Board Circular of 1989:The Board Circular of 1989 limited endorsements on SAIL's documents to one, as highlighted in the show cause notice. The Tribunal acknowledged this limitation but relied on established legal precedents that recognized SAIL's documents with multiple endorsements as valid for Modvat credit, emphasizing the importance of clear duty payment and usage confirmation.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief according to law based on the established legal principles and precedents regarding the validity of SAIL's documents for Modvat credit.