Sterling Machine Tools Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the question for determination in this appeal is the eligibility to credit on the strength of invoice issued by sail which credit has been denied on the ground, inter alia that the invoice dated 10-7-1995 issued by sail did not contain complete address of the appellants and that the certificate evidencing payment of duty in pla also does not show the complete address of the appellants. the address shown in the sail invoice bears foundry nagar address whereas the appellants have two units at agra (1) c-38, foundry nagar and (2) b-13, foundry nagar, agra. learned counsel, shri r. santhanam submits that there is no dispute that the inputs viz. pig iron were received from sail under cover of invoice dated 10-7-1995 and were used in the manufacture of final products and incompleteness of address cannot be the only ground for denial.2. learned dr supports the findings contained in the orders of the authorities below.3. i have considered the rival submissions. i find that (a) there is no dispute that duty paid inputs were received by the appellants herein (b) they were covered by the invoice dated 10-7-1995; (c) inputs were used in the manufacture of final products by the appellants (d) the appellants have two units in foundry nagar (e) there is no double availment of credit - in other words, it is not the case of the department that b-13, foundry nagar unit has utilised the credit and once again the c-38 foundry nagar unit has taken the credit. in these circumstances, i agree with the learned counsel that incompleteness of address in such a situation cannot be a ground for denial of credit in the absence of any other dispute and, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Judgment:
1. The question for determination in this appeal is the eligibility to credit on the strength of invoice issued by SAIL which credit has been denied on the ground, inter alia that the invoice dated 10-7-1995 issued by SAIL did not contain complete address of the appellants and that the certificate evidencing payment of duty in PLA also does not show the complete address of the appellants. The address shown in the SAIL invoice bears Foundry Nagar address whereas the appellants have two units at Agra (1) C-38, Foundry Nagar and (2) B-13, Foundry Nagar, Agra. Learned Counsel, Shri R. Santhanam submits that there is no dispute that the inputs viz. pig iron were received from SAIL under cover of Invoice dated 10-7-1995 and were used in the manufacture of final products and incompleteness of address cannot be the only ground for denial.

2. Learned DR supports the findings contained in the orders of the authorities below.

3. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that (a) there is no dispute that duty paid inputs were received by the appellants herein (b) they were covered by the invoice dated 10-7-1995; (c) inputs were used in the manufacture of final products by the appellants (d) the appellants have two units in Foundry Nagar (e) there is no double availment of credit - in other words, it is not the case of the Department that B-13, Foundry Nagar unit has utilised the credit and once again the C-38 Foundry Nagar Unit has taken the credit. In these circumstances, I agree with the learned Counsel that incompleteness of address in such a situation cannot be a ground for denial of credit in the absence of any other dispute and, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.