1999 (2) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Overturns Disallowance of Modvat Credit on Inputs

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the disallowance of Modvat credit on inputs received before 11-1-1995. It held that minor procedural errors ... Modvat - Declaration Issues:- Disallowance of Modvat credit on inputs received before 11-1-1995.- Denial of credit on specific Invoice No. MS/VIN/103, dated 8-12-1994.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of Modvat credit on inputs received before 11-1-1995The appeal challenged the disallowance of Modvat credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on incomplete declarations filed under Rule 57G. The appellants contended that they had initially filed a declaration on 25-11-1994 and later revised it on 10-1-1995. The inputs remained in the factory until the second declaration was submitted, and relevant records were shared with the authorities. The Tribunal noted that the Superintendent of Central Excise was informed of the situation and that the appellants had substantially complied with the law. The department failed to refute these submissions during the hearing, leading to the conclusion that the essential requirements of the law were met. The Tribunal held that minor procedural errors should not be the basis for denying Modvat credit when there is substantive compliance with the law, as established in previous Tribunal orders.Issue 2: Denial of credit on specific Invoice No. MS/VIN/103, dated 8-12-1994The department denied credit on this specific invoice due to the handwritten mention of 'Duplicate for Transporter' instead of it being pre-printed, as required under Rule 57G. The appellants argued that the authenticity of the invoice was not challenged, and it was an admitted fact that the credit was taken on a duplicate copy for the transporter. They emphasized that all necessary conditions under Rule 57A r/w 57G were fulfilled, and any procedural errors in the invoice should not penalize the appellants for mistakes beyond their control. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that the inputs in question were received and utilized for specified purposes, and procedural infractions should not lead to the denial of Modvat credit when there is substantive compliance with the law. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, submissions, and conclusions regarding the disallowance of Modvat credit and the denial of credit on a specific invoice, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the Tribunal's decision.