2005 (11) TMI 419 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
- Duty amount of Rs. 41,600 and penalty amount of Rs. 6,000
- Denial of Modvat credit against invoice lacking Central Excise registration number
- Amendment to Rule 57G of Modvat Credit Rules by Notification No. 7/99
- Circular No. 441/7/99 by Central Board of Excise & Customs
- Dispute resolution for pending cases

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerns a duty amount of Rs. 41,600 and a penalty of Rs. 6,000. The Tribunal admits the appeal for hearing regarding the stay. The issue revolves around the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants due to an invoice lacking the Central Excise registration number of the original manufacturer. The Tribunal proceeds with the appeal's disposal without pre-deposit, given the narrow compass of the issue.

The crux of the matter lies in the denial of Modvat credit against an invoice dated 26th July, 1995, which lacked the required Central Excise registration number. The appellant's representative highlights the invoice in question, issued by the Delhi office of the manufacturer, containing details of the original duty paying documents. Despite the absence of the registration number, there is no dispute regarding the receipt and consumption of inputs by the appellants.

During the proceedings, Rule 57G of the Modvat Credit Rules saw an amendment through Notification No. 7/99. This amendment clarified that credit shall not be denied based on specific document requirements if essential details like duty payment, goods description, assessable value, and factory or warehouse details are present. A subsequent circular by the Central Board of Excise & Customs further elaborated on the treatment of condonable errors, especially in pending cases.

In light of the legal framework post-amendment and circular clarification, the Tribunal references a previous case, Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd., where minor errors were condoned if no disputes existed regarding input receipt, consumption, and duty discharge. Given the lack of dispute in the current case regarding input handling and duty payment, denying Modvat credit would result in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal sets aside the previous order and allows the appeal, emphasizing the importance of justice in such matters.