C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. Gatiman Auto Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of parts of two wheeler and 4 wheeler motor vehicles and availing modvat creditin terms of rule 57a of the central excise rules 1944. show cause notice no. 708 dated 19.1.95 was issued to them proposing denial of credit of rs.1,43,855/- and recovery of the same, on ground that it was taken on invoices which did not confirm to the prescribed proforma and have been issued by registered dealers.2. another show cause notice no.1042 dated 19/30 january 1995 was issued seeking to deny credit of rs.1,05,571/- and recovery of the same for the reason that it was taken on invoices which did not contain the requisite information such as manufacture's invoice no. and date, quantity,value etc., although the invoices were issued by registered dealers. the dealer in question is m/s steel authority of india ltd., the assistant commissioner adjudicated both the notices by common order dis-allowing total credit of rs.2,53,526/- taken on the basis of invoices issued by un-registered dealer viz m/s sail. the lower appellate authority set aside the order of the adjudicating authority, holding that the challan-cum invoice issued by sai contains all the relevant information required for the purpose of admissibility of credit;hence this appeal by the revenue.3. we have heard shri m.p. singh, ld. dr and shri a.b.shah, for the respondents. we find that the only ground of appeal before tribunal relates to be non registration of depots/stock yard of m/s sail, prior to 31/12/94, as required w.e.f. 4.7.94 under notification no.. 32/94 dt 4.7.94.4. however, we have perused the registration certificate of said depots/stock yards dated 31.8.94. from the certificate it is clear that registration was obtained well before 31.12.94. further even the show cause notice no. 1042 dated 19/30 january 1995 accepts that sail depot/ stock yard were registered with the central excise authorities. in view of this there is no substance in the appeal of the revenue.

Judgment:
1. Brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of parts of two wheeler and 4 wheeler motor vehicles and availing modvat creditin terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules 1944. Show cause notice No. 708 dated 19.1.95 was issued to them proposing denial of credit of Rs.1,43,855/- and recovery of the same, on ground that it was taken on invoices which did not confirm to the prescribed proforma and have been issued by registered dealers.

2. Another show cause notice No.1042 dated 19/30 January 1995 was issued seeking to deny credit of Rs.1,05,571/- and recovery of the same for the reason that it was taken on invoices which did not contain the requisite information such as manufacture's invoice No. and date, quantity,value etc., although the invoices were issued by registered dealers. The dealer in question is M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner adjudicated both the notices by common order dis-allowing total credit of Rs.2,53,526/- taken on the basis of invoices issued by un-registered dealer viz M/s SAIL. The lower appellate authority set aside the order of the adjudicating authority, holding that the challan-cum invoice issued by SAI contains all the relevant information required for the purpose of admissibility of credit;hence this appeal by the Revenue.

3. We have heard Shri M.P. Singh, Ld. DR and Shri A.B.Shah, for the respondents. We find that the only ground of appeal before Tribunal relates to be non registration of depots/stock yard of M/s SAIL, prior to 31/12/94, as required w.e.f. 4.7.94 under Notification No.. 32/94 dt 4.7.94.

4. However, we have perused the registration certificate of SAID Depots/Stock yards dated 31.8.94. From the certificate it is clear that registration was obtained well before 31.12.94. Further even the show cause notice No. 1042 dated 19/30 January 1995 accepts that SAIL Depot/ Stock Yard were registered with the Central Excise authorities. In view of this there is no substance in the appeal of the Revenue.