M/S. Marson'S Ltd. Vs. Cce, Kolkata-i - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....credit has been taken are not in conformity with the proforma of invoices under not fn.no.33\94, neither the show cause notice nor the original order nor the order-in-appeal is pointing out to the alleged discrepancies in the invoices. as such i am finding it difficult to dispose of the appeal on merits at this stage.2. shri dey has also argued that the minor procedural lapse have to be ignored in terms of the circular no.441\7\99-cx dt.23.2.99 issued by the cbec. on the other hand the ld.jdr has relied upon the tribunal's decision in the case of j.r.engg.works-2000(122)elt 514. however, in the absence of the nature of the discrepancies made the basis for rejecting the modvat credit, i cannot decide upon whether the said discrepancies are minor or major. as such i am constrained to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo decision. while deciding a fresh, the asstt.commissioner would take into consideration the law laid down by the tribunal in respect of the discrepancies in the invoice as also the circular referred to by the ld.adv.. the appellants would be given an opportunity for placing their case before the.....

Judgment:

1. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri K.P.Dey, ld.adv. and Shri A.K.Chattopadhyay, ld.JDR I find that the modvat credit has been denied to the appellants by rejecting their duty paying documents as not proper modvatable documents. I have gone through the show cause notice, the order passed by the original adjudicating authority and the order of the Commissioner(Appeals). Except alleging that the invoices on the basis of which modvat credit has been taken are not in conformity with the proforma of invoices under not fn.no.33\94, neither the show cause notice nor the original order nor the order-in-appeal is pointing out to the alleged discrepancies in the invoices. AS such I am finding it difficult to dispose of the appeal on merits at this stage.

2. Shri Dey has also argued that the minor procedural lapse have to be ignored in terms of the circular No.441\7\99-CX dt.23.2.99 issued by the CBEC. On the other hand the ld.JDR has relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of J.R.Engg.Works-2000(122)ELT 514. However, in the absence of the nature of the discrepancies made the basis for rejecting the modvat credit, I cannot decide upon whether the said discrepancies are minor or major. As such I am constrained to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo decision. While deciding a fresh, the Asstt.Commissioner would take into consideration the law laid down by the Tribunal in respect of the discrepancies in the invoice as also the circular referred to by the ld.adv.. The appellants would be given an opportunity for placing their case before the original adjudicating authority in de novo proceedings. In view of the foregoing appeal is allowed by way of remand.