1998 (6) TMI 407 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal upheld for Modvat credit, marking issue deemed procedural.

The Tribunal upheld the appeal, emphasizing that the duty paid inputs were received without dispute, and the marking issue was merely procedural. The ... Modvat - Duty paying documents Issues:1. Denial of Modvat credit on the grounds of technicalities.2. Requirement of printing original, duplicate, triplicate on invoices for availing Modvat credit.3. Interpretation of Rule 52A and Notification No. 2/95 regarding marking on invoices.Issue 1: Denial of Modvat credit on technical groundsThe Appellant contested the denial of Modvat credit by the Department due to the manner in which the duplicate copy for the transporter was marked on the invoices. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, citing a similar decision in another case where Modvat credit was granted despite similar technical discrepancies. The Tribunal upheld the appeal, emphasizing that the duty paid inputs were received without dispute, and the marking issue was merely procedural.Issue 2: Requirement of printing on invoices for Modvat creditThe Department argued that the invoices should have the words 'Duplicate for Transporter' pre-printed as per Trade Notice and Circular. The Appellant's counsel referenced various decisions supporting the view that substantial benefits like Modvat credit should not be denied for procedural lapses. The Tribunal noted that while the circular emphasized printing, the legal requirement under Rule 52A and Notification No. 2/95 used the term 'marked,' indicating a procedural rather than substantive requirement.Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 52A and Notification No. 2/95The Tribunal analyzed the conflicting requirements of printing versus marking on invoices for availing Modvat credit. It considered whether the circular's printing directive could override the legal term 'marked' in Rule 52A and Notification No. 2/95. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty paid character of the goods was not in dispute, and any printing requirement was procedural. Relying on past judgments, the Tribunal held that the substantial benefit of Modvat credit should not be denied based on technicalities, ultimately upholding the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and rejecting the Department's appeal.