1996 (9) TMI 407

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Central Excise Duty vide dealers' Invoice No. 13449 dated 11-7-1994 and 44/UGH/94-95 dated 20-7-1994 on 21-7-1994. The dealers who issued the invoices are M/s. Genrewala Brothers, Calcutta & M/s. Utkal Glass House, Calcutta. 2.3 Prior to 4-7-1994, it may be stated at this stage, these invoices were valid for the purpose of allowing the Modvat credit. However, on 4-7-1994, a Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 was issued prescribing the documents under Rule 57G for the purpose of taking the Modvat credit. It, inter alia, prescribed invoice issued by a dealer of excisable goods registered with the Central Excise Officers. Simultaneously, another Notification 33/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 was issued inserting Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In other words, it was stated that any invoice issued by a dealer, if he got himself registered subsequently would be acceptable if he was eligible to issue the invoice/document under Notification 15/94-C.E. and Notification 21/94-C.E. (N.T.). 3. Since the aforesaid clarification did not extend the benefit to the appellants herein inasmuch as the persons who issued the invoices did not get themselves registered with the Central Excise authorities under Rule 174, the lower authorities have disallowed the benefit of Modvat credit taken by the appellants. Apart from the reversal of Modvat credit of Rs. 22,143/ and penalty of Rs. 250/ has also been imposed on the appellants. It is against the aforesaid order that the appeal has now be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een followed by an assessee and it is not practicable for the appellants to follow, it would not be the intention to deny the Modvat credit so long as the duty-paid character of the inputs covered by the invoices is not denied by the Department. Any number of citations have been made in the appeal memo for the proposition that a substantive benefit should not be denied for procedural infractions or procedural deviations. It is, therefore, urged that the Modvat credit should not be recovered and the penalty should not be imposed. In other words, the impugned order be set aside. 5. Opposing the contention of the appellants in their appeal memo, Shri B.B. Sarkar, ld. JDR, reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. I h....