Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 615 - HC - Central ExciseDenial of MODVAT Credit - split of consignment and transport in various vehicles against single Invoice - duplicate copy of invoice - In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the first respondent was correct in denying the Modvat Credit to the extent of ₹ 4,63,570/- relating to the inputs received from Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, a Government of India undertaking, merely on the ground that the inputs covered under single invoice were transported by various vehicles by splitting up the consignment, as a matter of convenience for the supplier in transporting such inputs, which is merely procedural in nature - Held that:- It is not in dispute that there is one invoice already produced which shows payment of duty on the goods removed from Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. But insofar as goods which have been split up into several smaller consignments, Rule 52A(4) of the Rules clearly mandates that if all the packages comprising a consignment are despatched in one lot at any one time, only one invoice shall be made out in respect of the consignment. It also provides that if, however, a consignment is split up into two or more lots each of which is despatched separately either on the same day or on different days, a separate invoice shall be made out in respect of each such lot. It further provides that in case a consignment is loaded on more than one vehicle, vessel, pack animal or other means of conveyance which do not travel together but separately or at intervals, a separate invoice shall be made out in respect of each vehicle, vessel, pack animal or other conveyance. The appellant in this case had not complied with the procedure contemplated under Rule 52A(4) of the Rules. Tribunal was correct in denying the Modvat Credit in respect of clearance made in violation of Rule 52A(4) based on photocopies of documents, which we hold is no document at all as per the Rules. - Decided against the assessee. Present case the goods have been supplied by Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, a Government of India Undertaking, and the department has accepted the plea that the entire inputs have suffered duty. However, the only reason attributable for levy of penalty is that the goods were not accompanied with proper invoices, as required under Rule 52A(4) of the Rules. From a reading of the orders of the Tribunal and the authorities below, it is clear that the appellant had no intention either to evade payment of duty or to avail duty wrongfully. In such view of the matter, we set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant in both the cases - Decided partly in favour of the assessee
|