TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (12) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n their RG 23C Part II and such credit amounted to Rs. 17,638.52. All the aforesaid credits totalling to Rs. 30,028.52 were disallowed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, who also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the party for alleged contravention of the Modvat rules. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was one passed against the assessee ex-parte. The party, aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, appealed to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the latter upheld the order of adjudication. The present appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. I have carefully examined the orders of both the lower authorities and connected records. The input-credit of Rs. 10,745/- was disallowed on the ground that the details regarding the goods and of the duty paid thereon were not shown in the invoices received from the registered dealers of the manufacturers of the goods. The input credit of Rs. 1,645/- on floculating agent was disallowed on the ground that the input was not declared in the declaration submitted by the party under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. Similarly, the capital goods credit of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same on the ground that the party had availed the credits which were not due to them. 4. In the present appeal, the appellants have submitted that the two decisions of the Tribunal, relied upon by the lower appellate authority, are not applicable to the facts of the case and also that the latest judgment of the Tribunal relied upon by them were ignored by the lower authorities. Regarding the credit of Rs. 10,745/-, the appellants have submitted that the-requisite details were specified in the upper part of the invoices issued by the registered dealer. They have further stated that the factual details could have been verified by the adjudicating authority from the said dealer or even from the manufacturer of the goods. As regards the credit taken on floculating agents, the appellants have submitted that the said item of inputs is a chemical as shown against Sl. No. (4) in the declaration submitted on 1-1-1995 under Rule 57G of the Rules. It is further contended that the adjudicating authority could have directed them to specify the item covered by the description 'chemicals', if at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such as description of goods, quantity, value, rate of duty and amount of duty specified in certain columns of the invoices. He has further submitted that the authorities below have refused to accept the invoices as valid duty-paying documents on the flimsy ground that the aforesaid details were not given in the relevant columns of the invoices. The non-mention of the aforesaid details in the relevant columns of the invoice is, at best, a mere technical irregularity or a curable defect which cannot be raised as a ground for denying the substantial benefit of Modvat credit to the assessee. In support of this submission, the learned Advocate has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pahladrai Confectioneries Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Allahabad reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 86 (Tribunal). On the issue relating to the Modvat credit taken by the appellants on floculating agent, the learned Advocate has submitted that it is a matter of common knowledge that one and the same item is marketed by different manufacturers under different brand names so that it is difficult to mention all such different names, for a single item, in the Modvat declaration. It was for this reason, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also relied on the Tribunal's decisions in the cases of Shriram Needle Bearing Indus. Ltd. (supra) and Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (supra) in his attempt to justify the decision of the lower appellate authority holding Modvat credit to be inadmissible in respect of floculating agents for want of proper description of inputs in the Modvat declaration filed under Rule 57G. The learned JDR has further submitted that the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Transformers & Switch Gears (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and the case law cited. Regarding the Modvat credit of Rs. 10,745/-, taken on inputs on the strength of registered dealers' invoices, I find much force in the submissions of the learned Advocate and his reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pahladrai Confectioneries (supra), wherein there was no dispute about the receipt of the inputs and their utilisation in the factory of the assessee or about the duty-paid character of the goods. The Tribunal in that case held that, in such circumstances, the substantial benefit of Modvat credit could not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by the appellants on the capital goods, namely, Excitation Coil, Pinion Shaft, Nickel Micro and Hypo Rotary Gear Pump on the basis of the finding that neither the description nor the tariff sub-heading shown in the Modvat declaration tallied with the respective goods so much so that the declaration filed under Rule 57T was not good declaration in respect of the said goods, one has to closely look at the declaration filed by the appellants, copy of which is available on record. Excitation Coil is, according to the appellants, covered by the description 'Generating Set-Parts' shown against Sl. No. 26 in the declaration. 'Pinion Shaft' is covered by the description 'Shaft Coupling' shown against Sl. No. 31 in the declaration. 'Nickel Micro' is taken in by the description 'Nickel Screens' given at Sl. No. 1 in the declaration and 'Hypo Rotary Gear Pump' is covered by the description 'Gear Boxes & Other Speed Changers' given against Sl. No. 25 in the declaration. In respect of any of these goods, there is no dispute about receipt and utilisation of the goods by the appellants in their factory for manufacture of their final products, nor is there any dispute regarding the duty-paid cha....