M/S. Mahavir Vanaspati Company Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appellants made a request to deided the appeal on merits. the brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of vegetable products and were availing the benefit of modvat credit. the appellants availed the benefit of modvat credit in respect of inputs on the basis of invoice issued by the manufacturer of the product. the invoice was in the name of the dealer m/s. paramount chemical corporation. show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the invoice was not in the name of the appellants on the strength of which the credit has been taken and the subsequent bill issued by m/s. paramount chemical corporation, mohali which was issued against the manufacturer invoice does not confirm to the conditions of the notification no.33/94-ce (nt) dated (sic) and 32/94 ce (nt) dated 4.7.94. the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. the appellant filed appeal and the same was rejected.2. heard learned sdr and perused the appeal papers. the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order in para-5 held as under : "i have carefully gone through the case records including submissions made by the appellants and observe that credit was availed on the invoice which was not issued in the name of the appellants. there is no such provision in the central excise law to allow the credit on the strength of invoice which has not been issued to the party who is availing the credit. even the endorsement is not allowed after 1.4.94. so the credit is admissible to the party to whom the invice has been issued. as the invoice has not been issued to the appellants they are not entitled for credit on the same. so i find the order-in-original perfectly judicious and uphold the same." 3. the commissioner (appeals) had not considered the (sic) of the appellants in respect of the invoice issued by the dealer m/s.paramount chemical corporation, mohali copy of which on record which shows the rate of duty as well as the total duty paid. the appellants took a specific plea before the adjudicating authority that the manufacturer invoice was issued in favour of m/s. paramount chemical corporation who is the dealer and the dealer issued invoice in favour of the appellants. in the show cause notice, the allegation against the appellant is that invoice issued by m/s. paramount chemical corporation does not confirm the notification nos.33/94-ce (nt) and 32/94-ce (nt) both dated 4.7.94. in these circumstance, i find that the denial of modvat credit by the commissioner on a different ground then the ground taken in the show cause notice is not sustainable, hence set aside and the matter is remanded to the commissioner (appeals) for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. the appeal is disposed of as mentioned above.

Judgment:
1. The appellants made a request to deided the appeal on merits. The Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Vegetable Products and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit. The appellants availed the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of inputs on the basis of invoice issued by the manufacturer of the product. The invoice was in the name of the dealer M/s. Paramount Chemical Corporation. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the invoice was not in the name of the appellants on the strength of which the credit has been taken and the subsequent bill issued by M/s. Paramount Chemical Corporation, Mohali which was issued against the manufacturer invoice does not confirm to the conditions of the Notification No.33/94-CE (NT) dated (SIC) and 32/94 CE (NT) dated 4.7.94. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The appellant filed appeal and the same was rejected.

2. Heard learned SDR and perused the appeal papers. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in Para-5 held as under : "I have carefully gone through the case records including submissions made by the appellants and observe that credit was availed on the invoice which was not issued in the name of the appellants. there is no such provision in the Central Excise law to allow the credit on the strength of invoice which has not been issued to the party who is availing the credit. Even the endorsement is not allowed after 1.4.94. So the credit is admissible to the party to whom the invice has been issued. As the invoice has not been issued to the appellants they are not entitled for credit on the same. So I find the order-in-original perfectly judicious and uphold the same." 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not considered the (SIC) of the appellants in respect of the invoice issued by the dealer M/s.

Paramount Chemical Corporation, Mohali copy of which on record which shows the rate of duty as well as the total duty paid. The appellants took a specific plea before the adjudicating authority that the manufacturer invoice was issued in favour of M/s. Paramount Chemical Corporation who is the dealer and the dealer issued invoice in favour of the appellants. In the show cause notice, the allegation against the appellant is that invoice issued by M/s. Paramount Chemical Corporation does not confirm the Notification Nos.33/94-CE (NT) and 32/94-CE (NT) both dated 4.7.94. In these circumstance, I find that the denial of MODVAT credit by the Commissioner on a different ground then the ground taken in the show cause notice is not sustainable, hence set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of as mentioned above.