2000 (8) TMI 834 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Disallowance of Modvat Credit for Incorrect Invoices

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Modvat credit to the appellants for using original invoices instead of duplicate or transporter's copies, citing ... Modvat - Duty paying document Issues: Disallowance of Modvat credit due to use of original invoices instead of duplicate or transporter's copies.In this case, the Assistant Commissioner disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,66,600/- to the appellants under Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The disallowance was based on the party availing Modvat credit using original invoices instead of duplicate or transporter's copies, which was deemed a violation of Rule 57G(2) read with Rule 52-A(3)(ii). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that only duplicate or transporter copy of invoices is acceptable for Modvat credit, rejecting the appeal of the party.The appellant argued that they were permitted to continue using existing invoices by the Commissioner's office until a specified date, relying on Trade Notice No. 23/CE/94 and Board's Circular No. 76/76/94-CX. However, the Revenue contended that the invoices in question were issued after the permitted date, supporting the lower authorities' findings. The Tribunal noted that Modvat credit based on invoices other than duplicate copies is impermissible, citing the precedent set by C.C.E., Delhi v. Avis Electronics. The Tribunal emphasized that the permission to use old stationery was valid only until a specified date, as evidenced by the permission letter, and the circular referenced by the appellant was not applicable to the present case, as it pertained to dealers registered under Rule 57GG, not manufacturers like the appellants. The Tribunal also differentiated the facts of this case from the decision in TISCO v. C.C.E., Patna, clarifying that the Circular under discussion was specific to a different category of persons and could not be extended to benefit the appellants.Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal failed, and accordingly, it was rejected.