TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand Amount 30-12-1994 2-7-1994 to 31-7-1994 24,93,871.73 27-1-1995 August 1994 30,75,724.83 28-2-1995 September 1994 39,14,975.96 30-3-1995 October 1994 36,56,966.65 28-4-1995 November 1994 47,33,119.95 30-5-1995 December 1994 57,97,054.63 28-6-1995 January 1995 73,76,562.00 The second adjudication order covers 6 show cause notices, details of which are furnished herein below : Show cause notice Period of demand Amount 27-7-1995 February 1995 32,20,824.78 31-8-1995 March 1995 33,18,384.58 29-9-1995 April 1995 91,91,884.89 31-10-1995 May 1995 39,73,127.66 5-12-1995 June 1995 9,31,392.94 29-12-1995 July 1995 38,62,903.74 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants, M/s. Raaj Unocol Lubricants Ltd. (hereinafter referred to RUL) are registered with the Central Excise Department for the manufacture of clearing agents, gasoline additives, lubricating oils and greases falling under Chapter Headings 27 and 34 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. They entered into a contract with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IOC) for manufacture of Servo brand lubricating oils, for the manufacture of which they recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at certain credits have been taken under Rule 57Q as credits on capital goods; that such goods are not covered under the definition of "capital goods" as given in Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the party has also not produced the documents evidencing the payment of duty on these goods. Hence credit is not admissible on them. The appellants submitted separate replies to the show cause notices. 3. After considering the replies and hearing them, the Commissioner dropped the first charge. The appellants themselves accepted the charge No. (iii) that they had taken excess credit and deposited a sum of Rs. 51,900.75 out of the excess credit of Rs. 54,400.84. The Commissioner confirmed the charges at Sl. Nos. (ii), (iv) and (v) and the amounts of duty as set out above were confirmed and penalties as set out above were imposed on the appellants. Hence these appeals. 4. The appellants filed applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. By Stay Orders dated 22-8-1996 [1996 (87) E.L.T. 507 (Tribunal)] and 17-3-1997 respectively, the Tribunal directed pre-deposit of Rs. 1.98 crores and Rs. 90 lakhs respectively. Civil Writ Petitions we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or respondent No. 1 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of respondent No. 1 that there will be no objection in hearing Indian Oil Corporation also in case Indian Oil Corporation of its own will put in appearance on the date of hearing, but this may not be treated that hearing can be claimed as of right. Accordingly, it is ordered that in case the Indian Oil Corporation will put in appearance, its views will also be taken into consideration by CEGAT while deciding the petitioner's appeals. petitions have been pending since January, 1997 and stay is in operation, considering all aspects and the financial hardship of the petitioner, we partly allow the petitions by modifying the impugned order passed by the CEGAT and directing that instead and in place of the amount of Rs. 1.98 crores and Rs. 90 lacs, the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 99 lacs and Rs. 45 lacs respectively in the two appeals within a period of two months from today as a condition precedent for continuance of stay. On deposit of the amount, the CEGAT will hear the appeals on merits. Ordered accordingly. In case the Indian Oil Corporation will put in appearance, the CEGAT will also hear it. Parties to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invoice should be the document based on which the manufacturer could take Modvat credit. However, there is provision for taking Modvat credit of original invoice, if the duplicate copy is lost in transit. It is, therefore, contended that since there is alternative provision for taking credit on original invoice, they should be allowed the credit on the same. It is further argued that the following invoices are marked as "duplicate for transporter" and therefore they should be admissible for the purpose of Modvat credit: (i) Invoices at Sr. Nos. 55 to 58, 71 and 80 in respect of show cause notice dated 30-12-1994 at Sr. No. 2 of the Table in Para 2 above. (ii) Invoices at Sr. Nos. l36 to 157 in the show cause notice dated 27-1-1995 at Sr. No. 2 of the Table at para 2 above. (iii) Invoices at Sr. Nos. 88 to 111 in show cause notice dated 28-2-1995 at Sr. No. 3 of the Table in Para 2 above. 10. To the above submissions of the party, it may be stated that vide Notification No. 4/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1-3-1994, Rule 57G was amended and in the first proviso to Rule 57G(2) it has since been specified that no credit shall be taken unless inputs were received in the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r taking and utilising the credit under the Modvat scheme. The Central Govt. in their wisdom have specified only duplicate copy of an invoice for the purpose of taking Modvat credit and therefore a quasi-judicial authority cannot usurp the statutory powers of the Central Govt. and nullify these provisions in the name of procedural lapse. I therefore, hold that the goods wherever not received in the factory of the party under the cover of a duplicate copy of the invoice, the taking of the Modvat credit on such documents is prohibited and if already taken, such credit is liable to be reversed or the credit utilised is liable to be recovered in cash from the party. The party has referred to certain invoices which indeed have been marked as "duplicate for transporter". I have got these invoices verified by the Supdt. of the Range concerned. I admit them as genuine documents for the purpose of taking Modvat credit thereon. The credit involved in respect of these invoices amounts to Rs. 28,22,794.50." 6.1 The contention of RUL is that credit was availed on the strength of a copy of the stock transfer challan which is the transporter's copy and that as per the procedure adopted by I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pose of determining and payment of Excise duties, in lieu of the Gate-Pass under Rule 52A. 1.2 IOC was therefore preparing their Sales Invoices for the Commercial transactions as well as their own internal and inter-unit movements of Petro-products without containing the details as required under Rule 52A, as such details were otherwise provided for in their daily out-turns (in a Consolidated manner) 1.3 With a view to adopt uniformity in practice on All India basis, a fully Computerised Software System was developed for Terminal documentations (such as invoices, stock transfer documents etc.) 2.0  However, w.e.f 1-3-1994, with the introduction of Sales invoices or like documents as the basic assessment documents under Rule 52A, it became necessary to realign the contents of the Commercial Invoices so as to contain the additional details as required to be provided under Rule 52A in replacement of the Gate-Passes. 2.1 The above major changes envisaged in-depth discussions amongst the various groups concerned within the organisation, before suitable changes could be incorporated in the Computer Programme for implementation on All India basis. 2.2 Secondl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r transporter" till such time IOC could finalise the reprinting of the computerised stationery around mid 1995. (e)  the duplicate copies can be located from the respective regions by tracing the related payment vouchers but considering the very high volume of invoice documents ranging around 600 to 800 nos. per day at each of the supply locations and the numerous Transport Contractors involved in the process of Transportation of petro-products, it is apprehended that it will be a near impossible task to locate such duplicate copies which are relevant in the impugned appeal matter. (f)  however, as a Public Sector Undertaking, IOC, do hereby solemnly affirm :- (a)  that against such duplicate copies of invoices, no MODVAT Credit was availed as they were utilised by the Transport Contractors for obtaining their Transportation Costs only; (b)  that IOC would undertake to produce the duplicate copies to the extent possible (say at least 60 to 70% of the total documents required to be produced) by tracing out all the Transportation bills payment vouchers from different regions, for verification & to the satisfaction of the C. Excise Department that such duplicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bombay which had evidence of duty payment. It is stated that they were preparing reconciliation statement by which it could be established that the goods were transferred to them by IOC Bijwasan. Therefore, it is stated that these documents were cleared on payment of duty by IOC at Bombay; that they would produce the evidence of the same at the time of personal hearing. The party has been heard in extenso on 5-9-1995 and 13-9-1995. However, so far they have not able to produce the evidence of duty payment in respect of these invoices. M/s. RUL sent a communication dated 11-9-1995 in which they stated that some reconciliation in this regard has been done but their co-relation with the duty payment at IOC, tube Complex, Bombay is still pending. Since, there is no evidence of duty payment in respect of these invoices, the Modvat credit availed by them in respect of these invoices is not admissible to them on account of not mentioning the particulars of duty payments in contravention of the provisions of Notification No. 15/94-C.E.(N.T.), apart from the ground which I have already upheld in the preceding paragraphs. The wrong credit taken on this account is Rs. 25,80,584.04 + Rs. 21,48....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld that the modvat credit of Rs. 39,163.00 is not admissible under Rule 57Q and for want of proof of payment of duty on them. This credit is liable to be recovered from the party. 15. In the show cause notice dated 30-5-1995 referred to at Sr. No. 6 of the Table appended in the paragraph 2 of this order, there is an allegation that the party had taken a credit of Rs. 30,491.00 under rule 57Q in respect of the duty paid on the lab instruments. It is alleged that the definition of the capital goods given under Rule 57Q before 16-3-1994 did not cover lab instruments. It is further stated that the party has taken credit without filing declaration under Rule 57-I. Therefore, it is contended that this amount of Modvat credit is not admissible and is liable to be recovered from them. The party in their reply have stated that they had filed declaration under rule 57T on 21-9-1994 and another letter on the subject was addressed to the Central Excise office on 28-12-1994 advising them the number of Bill of Entry under which the equipments was cleared from Customs. It is contended that the finished goods to be supplied to IOC must meet the quality control parameters laid down by IOC and....