Judgment:
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Durga Steels Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the availment of the Modvat credit on the strength of endorsed bills, endorsed by M/s. Dalhousie Udyog. The bills which had been endorsed related to M/s. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (1935) Ltd. The bills had been issued on 1-6-1994, 23-6-1994, 28-6-1994 and 29-6-1994. W.e.f. 1-4-1994 the procedure with regard to the invoices on the strength of which the Modvat credit could be taken had been revised under Notification No. 15/94-CE. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 read with Notification No. 16/94-CE. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994. As the bills on the strength of which credit had been taken were issued after the date of the change over, proceedings were drawn against the appellants and a demand of Rs 98,923.36 was made which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The adjudicating authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, observed that M/s. Dalhousie Udyog did not fall within the category of persons specified for issuing invoices under Notification No. 15/94-C.E.(N.T.). On appeal, the view taken by the ajudicat-ing authority was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh, who also observed that the invoices subsequently issued by M/s.
Dalhousie Udyog did not contain all the required particulars.
2. I have heard Shri Gagan Kohli, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri D.K. Nayyar, JDR, for the respondents/Revenue.
3. Shri Gagan Kohli, Advocate, submitted that the procedure had been changed w.e.f. 1-4-1994 and the dealers were not aware of all the requirements of the law. The dealer from whom they had received the steel rectangular bars had also issued his own invoices and the endorsement on the invoices along with the suppliers' own invoices make the appellants eligible for the Modvat credit. With regard to certain discrepancies in the documents, he prayed for remand of the matter. He also referred to a number of decisions of the Tribunal in support of his contention that the endorsed invoice being a valid document, the Modvat credit was admissible. He referred to the following deicsions :CC, Bangalore v. Erose Pharma (P) Ltd., 1996 (64) ECR 564 (Tribunal); (2) M/s. Tumkur Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, 1997 (96) E.L.T. 595 (Tribunal);Krishna Cold Rolled Sections Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Kanpur,Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad, 4. In reply, Shri D.K. Nayyar, JDR, stated that the law relating to the endorsed invoices had been changed w.e.f. 1-4-1994 and the bills in this case had been issued much thereafter. He referred to the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh and pleaded that correct view had been taken by the lower authorities and that the credit had been rightly denied. He referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation, 5. I have carefully considered the matter. I find that under Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994, the Central Government had prescribed the "invoice", in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and such invoices were required to have the particulars as referred to in the notification itself. Under Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 certain documents earlier prescribed under the authority of the Central Board of Excise & Customs or under the authority of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had been taken as the prescribed doucments for the purposes of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
6. In this case four documents are involved. All the documents all captioned as the Bills of M/s. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (1935) Ltd. All these four documents have been issued on 1-6-1994, 23-6-1994, 28-6-1994 and 29-6-1994. As they had been issued after 1-4-1994, they were not admissible documents for the purposes of Modvat credit. They were also not covered by the provisions of Notification No. 16/94-C.E.The learned advocate had submitted that the supplier had also isued their own invoices. I find that the invoices are not the correct invoices as will be seen from the following: (1) Invoice No. 230 is dated 12-6-1994 and a reference has been made to manufacturing Invoice No. 622, dated 12-6-1994. It is seen that the Bill No. 622 is dated 1-6-1994. Thus, the invoice does not contain the correct particulars. The adjudicating authority had also referred that the invoice did not contain all the required particulars.
(2) The Invoice No. 253 was issued on 28-6-1994. In this invoice the reference has been made to the suppliers' invoice dated 29-6-1994.
In a invoice issued on 28-6-1994, there cannot be a reference to the invoice issued thereafter on 29-6-1994.
(3) Similarly, it is seen that in other invoices also full particulars as required by notification had not been given.
7. The Departmental Representative had referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation, 1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (S.C.), where the Supreme Court had observed that the non-observance of even a procedural condition was not to be condoned if it was likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconvenience.
8. The learned Advocate had referred to the Tribunal's decisions in support of his contention that if the goods are received by the appellants under an endorsed invoice and separate invoices are also issued by the dealer in respect of the very same goods, then the Modvat credit was admissible as the endorsed invoice could be taken as a valid document. He also referred that as there has been substantial compliance, the discrepancies were only technical and need to be condoned. I find that there are material discrepancies in the invoices issued by M/s. Dalhousie Udyog. The invoices had been made much after the change over on 1-4-1994.
10. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, I agree with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) that the Modvat credit had been wrongly taken under the cover of improper documents. As a result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.