TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (6) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - This case involves denial of Modvat credit on the sole ground that the manufacturers' invoice covering the goods did not have pre-printed serial numbers as required under Rule 52A(6) of the CER, 1944. In addition, for taking wrong credit, a penalty was also imposed on the user manufacturer. The Assistant Commissioner in his order held that the conditions of Rule 52A(6) could not be over-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rint the serial number. He stated that the duty paid nature of the goods was certified by the jurisdictional authorities. It was his case that for a procedural violation, substantive benefit could not be denied. As regards the buyer being beware, it was his submission that the doctrine related to sale of goods, but not to a statutory obligation. 4. Shri Nayyar, on the other hand, states that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and obligatory on the manufacture to pre-print the serial number of the invoice. Rule 57G speaks of an invoice issued under Rule 52A as one of the qualifying documents for availing of Modvat credit. Shri Nayyar is quite correct in stating that the invoice must be in terms of the parent rule for Modvat to be availed on its strength. 7. The invoice issued under Rule 52 witnesses the fact that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any such case so far. If the department is not inclined to recover duty once again from the parent manufacturer on the ground that Rule 52A invoice is defective, then the department should not deny the benefit of the Modvat credit to the buyer manufacturer on this ground. 8. The cited judgment of the Supreme Court upholds penal action for procedural violations where there is a possibility o....