Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Cremica Agro Foods Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of the revenue ils that the provisions of rule 57f of central excise rules are mandatory is nature and the appeal against the tribunal decision which is relined upon by the commissioner is filed and it is pending in the high court.4. rule 57g on the relevant time provides that no credit shall be taken unless inputs are received in the factory under the cover of invoice issued under rule 52a of the central rules. rule 52a of central excise rules provides that copies of invoice shall be marked at the top in bold capital letters as "duplicate for transporter". in view of these provisions of the rules at the relevant time, the ratio of the decision of the tribunal in the case of larsen & toubro ltd. vs. collector of central excise, bhubaneswar, reported in 1994 (53) ecr 595 (tribunal) is fully applicable as the requirement of the rules is only the marking with the word "duplicate for transporter". in view of theses facts, i find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is rejected.

Judgment:

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit was allowed on the Duplicate Copy of the invoice which is rubber stamped.

2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is heard in the absences of the respondents.

3. The contention of the Revenue ils that the provisions of rule 57F of Central Excise Rules are mandatory is nature and the appeal against the Tribunal decision which is relined upon by the Commissioner is filed and it is pending in the High Court.

4. Rule 57G on the relevant time provides that no credit shall be taken unless inputs are received in the factory under the cover of invoice issued under Rule 52A of the Central Rules. Rule 52A of Central Excise Rules provides that copies of invoice shall be marked at the top in bold capital letters as "Duplicate for transporter". In view of these provisions of the rules at the relevant time, the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, reported in 1994 (53) ECR 595 (Tribunal) is fully applicable as the requirement of the Rules is only the marking with the word "Duplicate for transporter". In view of theses facts, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is rejected.