Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
LAJJA RAM, P.G. CHACKO, P.S. Bajaj, JJ.
Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur -Respondent
Misc. Order Nos. M/1-10/2000-NB Appeal Nos. E/1652/96-NB; E/2138/97-NB E/2139/97-NB, E/303/98-NB; E/2137/97-NB E/336/98-NB; E/1753/96-NB E/397/96-MAS; E/1481/96-MAS & E/558/97-NB, 1 of 2000, 10 of 2000, 1652 of 1996, 2138 of 1997, 2139 of 1997, 303 of 1998, 2137 of 1997, 336 of 1998, 1753 of 1996, 397 of 1996, 1481 of 1996, 558 of 1997
Decided On : 10-01-2000
N.C. Jain, V.K. Gupta, V.K. Mehta, Indu Verma, Shobhna Bagadia, S.D. Gaur, K.L. Rekhi, Majeet Singh Gupta,Mewa Singh, Sanjeev Srivastava, D.K. Nayyar
Per P.S. Bajaj :
The following two issues have been referred to the Larger Bench :-
(1) whether the invoices issued by the unregistered dealers can be accepted as valid documents for claiming modvat credit and
(2) whether the endorsed invoices can be considered as valid documents for claiming modvat credit after 1.4.94.
2. The first issue has arisen on account of conflicting views rendered by different Benches of the Tribunal as is evident from the reference order made in Appeal No. E/2138/97-NB. In Jayana Time Industries Vs. CCE, Meerut, 1997 (18) RLT 512 = 1997 (93) ELT 245, the Tribunal disallowed the modvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by unregistered dealers while in Bengal Safety Industries Vs. CCE 1997 (18) RLT 241, Sandish Come Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 1999 (105) ELT 468, CCE Vs. Colour Coats, 1998 (26) RLT 403, Pearl Industries Vs. CCE Raipur, 1997 (23) RLT 83 (T) = 1998 (98) ELT 745 (T) and M/s. Shiv Iron Brass Works Vs. CCE New Delhi decided vide Final Order No. A/2095/96-NB dated 22.8.96 the Tribunal had taken the view that the invoices issued by the unregistered dealers were valid documents by holding that the Notification No. 32/94 dated 4th July, 1994 requiring registration of the dealer issuing the invoices, is only part of procedural law and not mandatory while contrary view has been taken in (1) Konark Cylinders & Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, (2) Poddar Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, 1997 (22) RLT 172 (T) = 1997 (95) ELT 438 (T) (SM) and (3) Jenny Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, 1997 (23) RLT 300 (T) = 1997 (96) ELT 606 (T) (SM) wherein it has been held that the invoices issued by the unregistered dealer, are valid documents for claiming modvat credit even if he failed to get himself registered in terms of Notification No. 32/94 dated 4th July, 1994 and Board's Circular No. 76/94-CE (NT) dated 18.11.94, upto 31.12.94.
3. The necessity for making reference of second issue had arisen on account of conflicting/inconsistent views expressed by various Benches of the Tribunal in different cases. In
(1) Tumkur Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, 1997 (21) RLT 205 (T) = 1997 (96) ELT 595 (T) (DB)
(2) Superpax India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector, 1997 (96) ELT 144 (T) (DB)
(3) Maharaja International Ltd. Vs. CCE, 1996 (86) ELT 528 (T) (DB)
(4) Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, 1996 (85) ELT 149 (T) (DB)
(5) Maharaja International Ltd. Vs. Collector, 1996 (84) ELT 466 (T) (DB)
(6) Krishna Insulation Vs. Collector, 1995 (7) RLT 59 (T)= 1996 (84) ELT 220 (T)
(7) Collector Vs. Bharat Wire Products, 1997 (21) RLT 578 = 1998 (99) ELT 297
(8) Krishna Cold Rolled Sections Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, 1998 (88) ELT 98 (T) (SM)
(9) Commissioner Vs. Rajalakshmi Mills, 1999 (103) ELT 276 (T) (DB)
the Tribunal had opined that the endorsed invoices are valid documents for claiming modvat credit even after 1.4.94 onwards. But contrary view has been expressed in-
(1) Konark Cylinders & Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr., 1998 (24) RLT 270 (T) (DB)
(2) Poddar Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commr., 1997 (22) RLT 172 (T) = = 1997 (95) ELT 438 (T) (SM)
(3) Jenny Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr., 1997 (23) RLT 300 (T) = 1997 (96) ELT 606 (T) (SM)
4. We proceed to deal with both the above referred questions one by one.
5. In respect of the first issue the counsel for the assessee has contended that registration of a dealer issuing the invoice for claiming modvat credit, in terms of Notification No. 32/94 dated 4th July, 1994 is only a procedural matter and deviation therefrom does not render the invoice issued by him as invalid document for the purpose of modvat credit as all that the Revenue department is required to examine is that the goods covered by the invoice were duty paid and had been actually used or were intended to be used, in the final product by the claimant of the modvat credit and if this condition stands satisfied, the non-registration of the dealer issuing the invoice subsequent to the issuance of the notification in question a
