TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was taken up by the appellant before the original adjudicating authority, but no findings were given by the lower authority as to why verification made by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority of the supplier cannot be accepted. The judgment of the Commissioner, Central Excise vs. Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (7) TMI 257 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT], relied upon by the A.R. is not applicable because the same was pronounced with respect to Rule 57G of the earlier Central Excise Rules, 1944 when there was a specific obligation under Rules 52A to have serially printed invoices. It is once again emphasized that substantial benefit cannot be denied to the assessee on the basis of procedural irregularity when un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity by making a reference to his counter-part. In support of his case, he relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-II[2012 (284) ELT 514 (Tri.-Mumbai.)]. 3. The ld. A.R. on the other hand relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (234) ELT 245 (H.P.)]. 4. Heard both the sides. The only issue which is required to be decided is whether the invoice on which serial number is hand-written can be considered as proper document issued under Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The said rule is reproduced below: Rule 11(2):The invoice shall be serially numbered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority, but no findings were given by the lower authority as to why verification made by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority of the supplier cannot be accepted. The judgment of the Commissioner, Central Excise vs. Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (234) ELT 245 (H.P.)], relied upon by the ld. A.R. is not applicable because the same was pronounced with respect to Rule 57G of the earlier Central Excise Rules, 1944 when there was a specific obligation under Rules 52A to have serially printed invoices. It is once again emphasized that substantial benefit cannot be denied to the assessee on the basis of procedural irregularity when under the new Central Excise Rule 11, there is no obligation of printed serial number o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
