Central Excise credit requires prescribed duty documents, and a revised show cause notice can validly supersede an earlier notice.

Credit under the Central Excise regime was admissible only on compliance with the prescribed documentation and payment procedure: PLA credit required deposit through the treasury challan procedure under Rule 173G, and Modvat credit in RG-23A Part II required a duty-paying document under Rule 57G. Self-issued supplementary invoices were not accepted as duty-paying documents, and provisional assessment was not available because that procedure had not been followed. The later show cause notice was also upheld because a revised notice may supersede an earlier one, and the power to issue notice includes amendment, deletion, or withdrawal where the recovery scope is expanded on the material available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether credit could be taken in PLA and RG-23A Part II on the strength of self-issued supplementary invoices and without the prescribed treasury challan or duty-paying document; (ii) Whether the later show cause notice was invalid because an earlier notice on the same matter had already been issued.

Issue (i): Whether credit could be taken in PLA and RG-23A Part II on the strength of self-issued supplementary invoices and without the prescribed treasury challan or duty-paying document.

Analysis: The credit in PLA could be taken only against deposit of duty in the Government treasury through the prescribed challan, and Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required compliance with that procedure. For Modvat credit in RG-23A Part II, Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permitted credit only on the basis of a duty-paying document. Self-issued supplementary invoices were not treated as duty-paying documents. The plea of provisional assessment was also unavailable, as no such procedure had been followed.

Conclusion: The credit availed by the assessee was not admissible and the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the later show cause notice was invalid because an earlier notice on the same matter had already been issued.

Analysis: The later notice was treated as superseding the earlier one. The power to issue a show cause notice includes the power to amend, delete, or withdraw it, and a revised notice could validly be issued where the scope of recovery was broadened on the available material. No acceptable proof showed absence of approval for the revised notice.

Conclusion: The later show cause notice was valid and the challenge to its legality failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld because the credit was wrongly taken and the challenge to the revised notice did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit under the Central Excise regime can be availed only in the manner and on the documents prescribed by the rules, and a revised show cause notice is not invalid merely because an earlier notice on the same subject had been issued.

---