Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 28
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar and H.S.Bhalla JJ.
Commr. Of C. Ex., Jalandhar
Versus
Jct Ltd.
C.E.A. No. 107 of 2008,
Decided On : JANUARY 7, 2009
The amendment in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed for the grant of modvat credit despite the lack of correct particulars of both persons on the invoices.
Headnote:
Modvat Credit - Central Excise Rules - The court found that the Modvat credit cannot be denied to the assessee-respondent based on the technical ground that the particulars of both persons were not correctly given, as the amendment made in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed for the credit to be granted despite such lack of particulars.
Fact of the Case:
The revenue appealed against the final order passed by the Tribunal, raising substantial questions of law regarding the allowance of modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules 1944.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Modvat credit cannot be denied to the assessee-respondent based on the technical ground that the particulars of both persons were not correctly given, as the amendment made in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed for the credit to be granted despite such lack of particulars. The appeal was dismissed as no question of law would arise for determination.
Issues: The issues raised were whether the Tribunal was right in allowing modvat credit on invoices not in the name of the respondent, whether the tribunal can overrule the statutory provisions of Rule 57G, and whether the tribunal can overlook its larger bench decision based on the production of certificates of supplier manufacturers on a later date after the issue of invoices for supply of goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the amendment made in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which allowed for the modvat credit to be granted despite the lack of correct particulars of both persons on the invoices.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as no question of law would arise for determination.
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. The revenue has preferred the instant appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, #24;the Act#25;), against the final order dated 7-2-2007 (P-3), passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, #24;the Tribunal#25;), proposing the following substantial questions of law :-
#28;(i Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal#25;s was right in allowing modvat credit under Rule 57G of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 on invoices which were not the specified documents under the ibid rule being not in the name of respondent? (ii Whether the tribunal can overrule the statutory provisions of Rule 57G of the Rules? (ii Can Tribunal overlook its Larger bench decision in case of M/s. Avis Electronics reported as 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (Tri. - L.B.) and Balmer Lawrie v. CCE reported as 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 on the ground of respondents producing certificates of supplier manufacturers on a later date after issue of invoices for supply of goods?#29;
2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, we find that the Modvat credit is sought to be denied to the assessee-respondent on the technical ground that the particulars of both persons i.e. consigner and the consignee were not correctly given. However, the aforementioned lack of particulars would not stand in the way of the assessee-respondent in view of the amendment made in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 . Therefore, on that basis the Modvat credit cannot be denied to the assessee-respondent. We find no ground to admit the appeal as no question of law would arise for our determination.
3. Dismissed.
