Full Judgment
2. In Appeal No. E/1365/04 covering the period October, 1997 to December, 1997 the total credit disallowed is Rs. 28,12,019/-. Penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been imposed. The grounds for disallowing the credit are as under :- (i) An amount of Rs. 21,63,776 has been disallowed on the ground that it was taken on the strength of invoice not marked as "Duplicate for Transporter"; (ii) Rs. 6,40,212 has been disallowed as taken on returned goods sent back, after reprocessing, on the ground that returned goods were not inputs and that the invoices on the basis of which the credit was taken were not endorsed in favour of the assessee; (iii) Credit of Rs. 8031/- has been disallowed as representing Cenvat taken on cancelled invoice.
3. In Appeal No. E/1366/04 covering the period Jan.98 to March, 98 the total credit disallowed is Rs. 68,93,317 and in addition, a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been imposed. Out of this amount, credit of Rs. 65,71,221/-has been disallowed for the same reason as set out against Sr. No. (1) of the previous appeal; Rs. 3.13,862/- has been disallowed on the same ground as Sr. No. (2) in the previous appeal. Over and above these two grounds, an additional ground for disallowing credit of Rs. 8,234 is that this amount was taken on the strength of corrected invoice.
4. In Appeal No. E/1588/04 covering the period March & April, 1998, credit of Rs. 70,002/- has been disallowed and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed. The sole ground for disallowing credit is that it was taken on invoice copy other than the 'Duplicate for Transporter'.
5. In Appeal No. E/1589/04 covering period April & May 1997, credit of Rs. 8,96,160/- has been disallowed on the ground that the appellants did not file correct declaration, and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed.
6. We have heard Shri Prakash Shah, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri Ajay Saxena ld.D.R. for the Revenue and perused the records and record our findings as under:- Taking up the ground that invoices were not marked "Duplicate for Transporter", we note that the invoices are computer generated and each of them shows as follows:- Original - for buyers, Duplicate - for Transporter, Triplicate - for Central Excise, Quadruplicate - for other purpose.
In each of the invoices, there is a tick mark against the (SIC) "Duplicate for Transporter". Further in the case of the same assessee, the Tribunal vide Order No. A-634/WZB/04/C.III dated 23.6.2004 has held that credit cannot be denied on this ground. All the invoices/except invoice No. 2394 dated 11.3.98 covering additional excise duty of Rs. 3,53,092 and basic excise duty of Rs. 2,35,295, this invoice is part of the subject matter relating to Appeal No. E/1366/04) bear the tick mark. Therefore, we hold that credit is admissible to the invoice except invoice No. 2394 dated 11.3.98.
7. Regarding credit disallowed on returned goods sent back, we accept the contention of the appellants that the goods were cleared on payment of duty from the factory to the depot but returned for re-processing and cleared again on payment of duty (there is no dispute that duty was initially paid and that the duty was paid once again). The objection that- these goods are not inputs on which credit can be taken, cannot be sustained. The objection that the invoice covering the goods has not been endorsed in favour of the appellants is also not sustainable as the document on the strength of which credit was taken is not in the nature of an endorsed Invoice as it only shows the appellants transporter's godown as the consignee. We, therefore, hold that credit cannot be denied to the appellants on this ground.
8. Invoice No. 00013 dated 24.11.97 on which credit of duty of Rs. 8031 was taken is not the cancelled invoice - the supplier has scored out cancellation and specifically remarked on the body of the invoice that it has not been cancelled and put his dated signature below such mark.
Therefore, the objection of the Revenue as regards this invoice falls out the ground.
9. Invoice No. 06872 originally showing consignee as Empress Mills, Nagpur has been changed by the supplier to Raymond Ltd. after cutting out the name of Empress Mills and the correction has been countersigned by the authorised signatory of the supplier. Thus credit cannot be denied on this invoice.
10. The invoice covering the credit of Rs. 17,002/- has been perused and found to contain tick mark against the words "Duplicate for Transporter". Therefore, there is no reason for disallowing the credit of this amount. Penalties in these 3 cases are also set aside.
11. In the result Appeal No. E/1365/04 is allowed in toto; Appeal No.E/1366/04 is partly allowed by upholding disallowance of credit of Rs. 5,88,387/- taken on invoice No. 2394 dated 11.3.98. Appeal No.E/1588/04 is allowed in toto.
12. Coming to Appeal No. 1589/04, the following chart explains the position.
Description in Declaration Dyes & Colours falling under all headings & sub-headings of Chapter 32 b) Bilaux-T : Chapter Heading No.3202.00 2 Plastics & Articles thereof falling under all headings & sub-headings of Chapter 39 b) Polythene Sheets: Chapter Heading No.3926.90 3 Inorganic Chemicals falling under all headings & sub-headings of Chapter 28 PEG-6000 (Poly Ethylene Glycol 6000) 2909.00 Organic Chemicals - all sub-headings of Chapter 29 b) a) Inorganic Chemicals - all Sub-headings of Chapter 28 b) Sodium Hydro Sulphite - Chapter Heading 2831.10 6 a) Inorganic Chemicals - all sub-headings ol Chapter 28 b) Soda Ash Light - Chapter Heading 2836.10 7 a) Organic surface-active agents, washing preparations, scouring preparation - all sub-headings of Chapter 34.
b) Organic Surface Active Bars : Others -Chapter Heading 3402.90 8 a) Soaps, organic surface r.;tive agents, washing preparations, scouring preparation - all sub-headings of Chapter 34 b) Sapcostat LV 40 - Chapter Heading 3402.90 9 a) Inorganic Chemicals - all sub-headings of Chapter 28 b) Sodium Hexameta Phospate - Chapter Heading 2835. 10 10 a) Soaps, organic surface active agents, washing preparations, scouring preparation - all sub-headings of Chapter 34 b) Amollan - Chapter Heading 3402.90 11 a) Articles of Paper & Paper Board - all subheadings of Chapter 48.
b) Bobbins, Spools, cops and similar supports of paper - Chapter Heading 4822.00 c) Paper Cone - Chapter Heading 4822.00 12 Adhesive Tapes/ Self Adhesive 39.19 Plastics and articles thereof - all subheadings of Chapter 39 b) Self Adhesive sheets - Chapt4er Heading 3919.00 13 Self Adhesive Film Tape - Chapter Heading 39 19.00 a) Soaps, organic surface active agents, washing preparations, scouring preparation -- all sub-headings of Chapter 34 14 Cirrasol - Chapter Heading 3403.90 a) Soaps, organic surface active agents, washing preparations, scouring preparation - all sub-headinas of Chapter 34 15 Ekaline - chapter Heading 3402.90 a) Plastics and articles thereof - all sul headings of Chapter 39 b) Plastic sheet rolls - Chapter Headin 3920.32 c) Box Strapping sheets & rolls - Chaptt Heading 3920.32 16 Soaps, organic surface active agent washing preparations, scouring preparation all sub-headings of Chapter 34 b) Sapcotex - Chapter Heading 3402,90 17 Finishing Agent for Textiles 3809.00 Miscellaneous Chemical Products - all sut headings of Chapter 38 b) Finishing Agents - Chapter Headin 3809.00 18 Soaps, organic surface active agent; washing preparations, scouring preparation all sub-headings of Chapter 34 b) Zelsoft- Chapter Heading 3403.90 19 Woollen Fabric - Chapter Heading 5111.10 20 Comberd Tops of Polyester - Chaptf Heading 5506.20 b) Polyester Topes - Chapter 5506.20 2] Polywool Yarn - Chapter flooding 5509.50 22 Waste of Synthetic Fibres - Chapte Heading 5505. 10 13. There is no dispute that the inputs on which credit was taken were either dyes and colours or plastics and articles thereof, organic or inorganic chemicals etc. falling under the Chapters mentioned in the declarations filed by the appellants. In other words, the appellants have correctly declared the goods although they have not filed a specific declaration. In the light of the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of Emgees Clubley v. CCE, Meerut 11999(113)E.L.T.189] we hold that such broad declaration is sufficient for the purpose of availment of modvat credit and accordingly hold that credit is admissible to the appellants, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.