M/S. I.J. Machines Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal arises out of and is directed against order in appeal dated 9.1.99. sh. narahari, appearing for the appellant submitted that the issue relates to denial of modvat credit. modvat credit has been denied on the ground that multiple marked invoices were not valid for availing modvat credit. he said that prior to 24.2.95., multiple marked invoices were valid documents to avail modvat credit as there were no such restriction. he also submitted that one of the invoices issued, in the instant case was prior to january 95 and accordingly there was no justification for denying the benefit.2. on the other hand, smt. radha arun, appearing for the revenue submitted, with reference to the invoices issued prior to 24.2.95, the commissioner has allowed the benefit, whereas in respect of the invoices issued on 31.9.95, and 22.3.95, were disallowed by the commissioner (appeals). according to the counsel, one of the invoices referred by the other side was not issued on 31.9.95, but was issued on 31.1.95. he said that relevant copies of the invoices are also available on record. he contended that the authorities below were not right in denying the benefit for procedural lapse. in support of his contention he referred to the decision of the tribunal, as per tribunal's order no. 175/99 dated 27.1.99.3. smt. radha, in support of her contention referred to the decision in the case of commissioner of customs and central excise vs. avis electronics pvt ltd reported in 2000 (117) elt 57 (t).4. i have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. it was contention of the party that modvat credit has been denied only on the procedural lapse. it was submitted by revenue that it is not merely procedural lapse but failure of substantial compliance of the provision of law.since the factual position requires to be examined afresh by the concerned adjudicating authority, i am remanding the matter to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to examine the matter afresh and to pass an order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the appellant. thus this appeal is disposed off in above terms.

Judgment:
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against order in appeal dated 9.1.99. Sh. Narahari, appearing for the appellant submitted that the issue relates to denial of MODVAT credit. MODVAT credit has been denied on the ground that multiple marked invoices were not valid for availing MODVAT credit. He said that prior to 24.2.95., multiple marked invoices were valid documents to avail modvat credit as there were no such restriction. He also submitted that one of the invoices issued, in the instant case was prior to January 95 and accordingly there was no justification for denying the benefit.

2. On the other hand, Smt. Radha Arun, appearing for the revenue submitted, with reference to the invoices issued prior to 24.2.95, the Commissioner has allowed the benefit, whereas in respect of the invoices issued on 31.9.95, and 22.3.95, were disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). According to the counsel, one of the invoices referred by the other side was not issued on 31.9.95, but was issued on 31.1.95. He said that relevant copies of the invoices are also available on record. He contended that the authorities below were not right in denying the benefit for procedural lapse. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Tribunal, as per Tribunal's order no. 175/99 dated 27.1.99.

3. Smt. Radha, in support of her contention referred to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. AVIS Electronics Pvt Ltd reported in 2000 (117) ELT 57 (T).

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. It was contention of the party that MODVAT credit has been denied only on the procedural lapse. It was submitted by revenue that it is not merely procedural lapse but failure of substantial compliance of the provision of law.Since the factual position requires to be examined afresh by the concerned adjudicating authority, I am remanding the matter to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to examine the matter afresh and to pass an order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the appellant. Thus this appeal is disposed off in above terms.