Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on invoices issued by a dealer who was unregistered on the invoice dates but obtained registration before the cutoff date, and whether the invoices satisfied the particulars required under Notification No. 15/94 dated 30-3-1994.
Analysis: The dealer had obtained registration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules before the date stipulated in the Board circular. The invoices were examined and were found to contain the particulars required under Notification No. 15/94, including the details appearing in the manufacturers' invoices under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules and the amount of duty. The finding was also that the relevant particulars had in fact been reproduced in the invoices, so the procedural objection did not survive on the facts.
Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the ground raised, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.
Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge to the grant of Modvat credit failed because the invoices complied with the prescribed particulars and the registration requirement was satisfied within the period contemplated by the circular.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the prescribed invoice particulars are in substance satisfied and the dealer obtains registration within the period allowed by the governing circular, Modvat credit cannot be denied on a purely technical objection.