2000 (7) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

CEGAT Tribunal Upholds Modvat Credit Decision

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the Modvat credit issue. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) ... Modvat credit - compliance with Rule 57G as to invoice address for Modvat credit - invoice in the name of the assessee despite incorrect consignee address - good faith clerical error in consignee address - availability of credit where duty-paid goods were received and credit availed only once - imposition of penalty under excise lawModvat credit - compliance with Rule 57G as to invoice address for Modvat credit - invoice in the name of the assessee despite incorrect consignee address - good faith clerical error in consignee address - Validity of Modvat credit availed on invoices bearing the assessee's name but showing an incorrect Delhi address in the consignee column - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal accepted the explanation that consignors, due to transport difficulties during January-May 1996, routed goods via Delhi and that the Delhi address in the invoices arose from a mistake by the consignor's staff in the consignee column. It was not disputed that the goods were duty paid and that the Modvat credit was availed only once. The Department's contention that Rule 57G was violated because the invoices carried a Delhi address was rejected because the invoices remained in the name of the respondents and the clerical error as to address did not negate entitlement to credit under the facts. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding in favour of the assessee was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.Revenue's appeal dismissed; order of Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh allowing the Modvat credit upheld.Final Conclusion: The appeal is rejected and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order allowing the Modvat credit is upheld; the Department's reliance on the incorrect consignee address to deny credit and sustain penalty was negatived. The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the Modvat credit issue. The Assistant Commissioner had denied the credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the invoices were in the name of the appellant, despite the address error, and the goods were duty paid. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected.