Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Gebbs (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai |
| Apr-02-2001 |
| Commissioner of Central Excise, |
| M/S. Gebbs (India) Pvt. Ltd. |
1. the notice issued to the manufactutrer, the respondent to this appeal, proposed denial of modvat credit on the ground that the invoices of the traders were not documents prescribed under rule 57g or rule 57gg. while the assistant commissioner confirmed proposal in the notice, the commissioner (appeals) noted that these invoices of the dealers were specified by notification 32/94.2. the appellant now seeks to deny the credit on the ground that mode of despatch and the number or other particulars of the vehicle were not shown in the invoice. in my view, this allegation does not flow from the notice. the notice only cited, as the reason for denial that the documents were not "prescribed documents as envisaged under rule 57g/gg of c. ex rules, 1944 read with notification 33/94 (nt) dated 4.7.1994.what this means to me is that the document itself was invalid, as being one which is not prescribed by law for the purposes of taking modvat credit. to now say that while accepting the document to be valid, that one of the particulars required is missing from it is a new ground.there is no reason why if this ground were to be relied upon, it should not have been incorporated in the notice.
1. The notice issued to the manufactutrer, the respondent to this appeal, proposed denial of modvat credit on the ground that the invoices of the traders were not documents prescribed under Rule 57G or Rule 57GG. While the Assistant Commissioner confirmed proposal in the notice, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that these invoices of the dealers were specified by notification 32/94.
2. The appellant now seeks to deny the credit on the ground that mode of despatch and the number or other particulars of the vehicle were not shown in the invoice. In my view, this allegation does not flow from the notice. The notice only cited, as the reason for denial that the documents were not "prescribed documents as envisaged under Rule 57G/GG of C. Ex Rules, 1944 read with notification 33/94 (NT) dated 4.7.1994.
What this means to me is that the document itself was invalid, as being one which is not prescribed by law for the purposes of taking modvat credit. To now say that while accepting the document to be valid, that one of the particulars required is missing from it is a new ground.
There is no reason why if this ground were to be relied upon, it should not have been incorporated in the notice.