Full Judgment
The Additional Collector raised several issues. He wondered whether the goods had ever left the factory but gave the benefit of the doubt and held that they had reached the buyer. He held that their own gate pass could not become a Modvatable document. On denying the availment of the Modvat credit, the assessee filed an appeal.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Modvatable document must show the name of the person, who is eligible to take credit and that ones own gate pass could not be held to be a Modvatable document and on this ground he upheld the lower order. Hence the appeal.
4. Shri Birader relies upon judgment of the Larger Bench, which permits receipt of the final products of the assesee to be brought back as inputs. [Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 711].
5. Shri Uma Shankar admits the ratio of the judgment, but submits that deficiency in the documentation would prevent the assessee from taking credit. He also submits that the judgment notes the return for the purpose of reconditioning, etc. Shri Birader refers to the reply to the show cause notice where reconditioning is claimed to be a ground for return. Shri Uma Shankar still continues his argument of inadequacy of documentation.
6. The extract of the show cause notice cited above does not seem to challenge inadequacy of the documents. It could be that such inadequacy could be inferred there from but the notice, which is meant to put the recipient on notice, must always spell out the exact charge. A notice, which is ambiguous or capable of interpretation, cannot be the ground for sustaining an order based on the inference drawn from the show cause notice.
7. On this observation, following the Larger Bench judgment quoted, the appeal is allowed.