2005 (7) TMI 111 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents - inputs for the manufacturing process - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The supplying dealer M/s. J.C.T. Limited, had applied for registration on 29-12-1994, and had been duly registered on 6-1-1995. In the circumstances, the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of Modvat credit only on the technical plea that registration had been issued subsequent to the so called cut oil date viz. 31-12-1994. This is all the more so, when the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals), is taken into consideration. To reiterate: the Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically found that the invoices contained the details as required under Notification No. 15/94. The only ground on which the petitioner was non suited was that M/s. J.C.T. Limited was granted registration on 6-1-1995.

It would be travesty of justice if the assessee is. denied benefit, to which it is otherwise entitled to, for no fault of the assessee. The assessee cannot, firstly, call upon supplying dealer to apply for registration before the cut-off date; secondly, even if the assessee does so and the supplying dealer makes application for registration before the cut-off date, it would be beyond the assessee or the dealer to ensure that the registration is granted by the cut-off date. There could be various circumstances, on the basis of which the registering authority, may not issue the certificate by so called due date. A simple example would be, absence of the registering authority, being on leave and charge being available with some other officer, who because of more pressing work may not attend to the work for which he holds additional charge, and in such circumstances to expect that the dealer must obtain registration by due date would be asking almost for the impossible, especially from the assessee who is merely a purchaser. Therefore, the denial of modvat benefit only on this technical plea is not justified in law, especially when all other requirements have been fulfilled by the supplying dealer.

In the result, in light of what is stated hereinbefore, it is apparent in the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner was entitled to Modvat credit considering the fact that firstly, the supplier had issued invoices in July and August, 1994, namely when the Adjudicating Authority had discretion available to it; secondly, the supplier had applied for registration on 29-12-1994 and had been registered on 6-1-1995; and thirdly, the supplier had issued invoices which admittedly complied with the requirements prescribed by various Notifications.

Hence, the order are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to allow Modvat credit of Rs. 3,57,997/- to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly allowed.