RULE 11(2) of CER 2002- pre printed or hand written invoice.

[VINOD KUMAR]

Respected all. Good evening. Sirs. Whether the details mentioned in rule 11(2) of CER 2002 should be pre-printed or hand written. I have seen many cenvated invoices which are hand written and even the description of inputs/capital goods on these items is not legible. Is cenvat credit available on these invoices. Pl. Reply.

[YAGAY andSUN]

Dear Deepak,

The specified Rule is silent about this. Assesse can opt either computer generated invoices or handwritten invoices. Both the options are valid under specified Rule. For availing CENVAT credit, Invoices should be legible otherwise Department may unnecessarily raise objections.

Regards,

YAGAY and SUN

(Management, Business and Indirect Tax Consultants)

[Mahir S]

In addition to the above reply, it is added that though the Invoices may be pre-printed or hand written; however, Hand Written Serial Number shall not be accepted by the department, as per para 3.2 of chapter 4 of the CBEC Manual.

[YAGAY andSUN]

Dear Deepak/Naveed,

This is for your kind information and knowledge enrichment.

Even hand written invoice nos. are valid. There is a favorable judgment in this matter also. Further, Rule 11(2) specify that the invoice shall be serially numbered and ¹[shall contain the registration number, address of the concerned Central Excise division,] name of the consignee, description, classification, time and date of removal, mode of transport and vehicle registration number, rate of duty, quantity and value, of goods and the duty payable thereon. Rule 11(2) nowhere mentions that Invoice Nos. must be pre-printed etc.

TMI ID= 226176

2013 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Other Citation: 2013 (293) E.L.T. 44 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

Sanathan Textiles P. Ltd. Versus CCE, Vapi

Cenvat credit admissibility on the basis of invoice on which serial number is hand-written - Held that:- There is no dispute that the inputs were duty paid and duly received by the appellant and used in the manufacture of excisable goods. If there was any discrepancy, the same could have been verified from the suppliers end by the jurisdictional Central Excise officers. The appellant has got such a certificate from the supplier of the inputs with a certification of the jurisdictional Superintendent confirming that the invoices stated in the letter dated 10/10/2011 of the supplier are checked from the records. This argument was taken up by the appellant before the original adjudicating authority, but no findings were given by the lower authority as to why verification made by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority of the supplier cannot be accepted. The judgment of the Commissioner, Central Excise vs. Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (7) TMI 257 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT], relied upon by the A.R. is not applicable because the same was pronounced with respect to Rule 57G of the earlier Central Excise Rules, 1944 when there was a specific obligation under Rules 52A to have serially printed invoices. It is once again emphasized that substantial benefit cannot be denied to the assessee on the basis of procedural irregularity when under the new Central Excise Rule 11, there is no obligation of printed serial number on the invoices. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is allowed.

No. - E/792/12

Order No. - 10469/2013-WZB/AHD

Dated - March 26, 2013

Mr. H.K. Thakur, J. For the Appellant: Shri W. Christian (Adv.) For the Respondent : Shri K. Sivkumar (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: H. K. Thakur: 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against Order in Appeal NO.SRP/17/VAPI/2012-13 dated 13/09/12 under which the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. The issue involved in this case is whether cenvat credit is admissible on the basis of invoice on which serial number is hand-written. 2.The ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that as per erstwhile Rule 52 A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, each invoice was required to bear a printed Sr.No. It was argued that as per Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, there is no such requirement of specific mention of printed serial number on the invoice. In order to clear the doubt, the appellant produced a letter dated 10/05/2010 from the supplier of goods duly countersigned by the jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent to the effect that invoice numbers under which credit is taken were issued after discharge of central excise duty. The ld. Counsel also argued that as per Central Excise Rules, if there was any discrepancy in the documents, the same can be rectified by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority by making a reference to his counter-part. In support of his case, he relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-II[2012 (284) ELT 514 (Tri.-Mumbai.)]. 3. The ld. A.R. on the other hand relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (234) ELT 245 (H.P.)]. 4. Heard both the sides. The only issue which is required to be decided is whether the invoice on which serial number is hand-written can be considered as proper document issued under Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The said rule is reproduced below: Rule 11(2):The invoice shall be serially numbered and [shall contain the registration number, address of the concerned Central Excise Division] name of the consignee, description, classification, time and date of removal, mode of transport and vehicle registration number, rate of duty, quantity and value of goods and the duty payable thereon. 5. It is evident from the wording of Rule 11(2) above, that invoice shall be serially numbered. However, under the earlier Rule 52(A)(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, there was a clear cut specification that each invoice shall bear a printed serial number. The appellant has, therefore, correctly made out the point that under existing Central Excise Rules, there is no requirement that the invoice should bear printed serial number only. It is an accepted legal position that substantial benefit should not be denied to the assessee simply on procedural discrepancies. In the present case, there is no dispute that the inputs were duty paid and duly received by the appellant and used in the manufacture of excisable goods. If there was any discrepancy, the same could have been verified from the suppliers end by the jurisdictional Central Excise officers. In the present case the appellant has got such a certificate from the supplier of the inputs with a certification of the jurisdictional Superintendent confirming that the invoices stated in the letter dated 10/10/2011 of the supplier are checked from the records. This argument was taken up by the appellant before the original adjudicating authority, but no findings were given by the lower authority as to why verification made by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority of the supplier cannot be accepted. The judgment of the Commissioner, Central Excise vs. Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (234) ELT 245 (H.P.)], relied upon by the ld. A.R. is not applicable because the same was pronounced with respect to Rule 57G of the earlier Central Excise Rules, 1944 when there was a specific obligation under Rules 52A to have serially printed invoices. It is once again emphasized that substantial benefit cannot be denied to the assessee on the basis of procedural irregularity when under the new Central Excise Rule 11, there is no obligation of printed serial number on the invoices. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is allowed by setting aside the order in appeal dated 30/09/2010 passed by the Commissioner (A). (Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court). YAGAY and SUN (Management, Business and Indirect Tax Consultants)

[Mahir S]

Yes Sir, agreed that even Invoices with hand written serial numbers are valid.

However, there has been instances wherein Cenvat credit availment has been disallowed by the Excise Audit Wings on Invoices bearing hand written serial numbers; and thereafter verification is done through concerned Range office under whose jurisdiction the supplier unit is located, also resulting in issuance of show cause notices for wrong availment of cenvat credit on invalid invoices, thus leading to further confusions and litigations.

Hence, i stand by my view that Invoices with Hand Written Serial Numbers should be avoided.

[YAGAY andSUN]

Dear Deepak/Naveed,

Please check the very first line of our reply. We had shared this judgment for your kind information and knowledge enrichment and not to persuade you to change your stand.

Yes, you have every right to stick with your stand. Keep digging and enriching your knowledge.

May God Bless both of you!

Regards,

YAGAY and SUN

(Management, Business and Indirect Tax Consultants)

AI Summary

Invoice serial numbering: handwritten serial numbers do not bar CENVAT credit when duty payment and supplier verification exist. Rule 11(2) requires invoices to be serially numbered and to contain specified particulars but does not mandate pre-printed serial numbers; handwritten serial numbers satisfy the serial-numbering requirement where inputs are duty-paid, used in manufacture and supplier-side verification by the jurisdictional excise authority is available.