TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product can avail credit. The allegation of the show cause notice are pointing merely a procedural lapse - Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. A procedural prescription is the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. The endorsed invoice otherwise qualify the intent of the legislature in terms of proviso to Rule 9 (2) of CCR. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appeal No.51224 of 2018 - Final Order No. 50018/2020 - Dated:- 8-1-2020 - HON BLE MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mr. O.P. Bisht, Authorised Representative for the Appellant Mr. S. Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoices / Bill of Entries to be the relevant document for the purpose of claiming the cenvat credit. There is no denial that the assessee/respondent has availed the Cenvat Credit on the endorsed invoices. Hence, it is a case of definite violation of Rule 9 because of which the Cenvat Credit could not have been allowed to be availed, as was earlier held by original adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a contrary finding. The order is, accordingly, liable to be set aside. 3. While rebutting these arguments, ld. Counsel for the assessee-respondent has submitted that the respondent has taken Cenvat Credit on such inputs which have been received by them through their another unit located at Haridwar, Uttaranch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nial about the receipt of the inputs/raw-material by the respondent-assessee in their factory from their another unit at Haridwar for those inputs/raw-material to be used in the manufacture of dutiable final product by the assessee-respondent. There is also no denial to the facts that liability towards Excise Duty on such final product has already been discharged by the appellant. Apparently and admittedly, under Rule 9 (1) an invoice and Bill of Entry are valid documents based on which a manufacturer of final product can avail credit. We observe from the rule that there is no stipulation about the said invoice or the Bill of Entry to not to be the endorsed. We further observe that the issue is no more res integra. The Hon ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf evidencing the payment of duty on such inputs. 10. On reading Rule 52A the position which emerges broadly is that the said Rule refers to eligibility for claiming MODVAT Credit, whereas Rule 57G refers to procedure to be observed by the manufacturer for taking credit for the duty paid on the inputs received by him. A bare reading of Rule 52A shows that no excisable goods shall be delivered from a factory or a warehouse except under an invoice signed by the owner of the factory or his authorised agent. Rule 52A, therefore, applies to a situation where goods are cleared from a factory or a warehouse to the place of assessee. For such a situation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sically a duty-collecting procedure, which aims at allowing relief to a manufacturer on the duty element borne by him in respect of the inputs used by him. It was introduced w.e.f. 1-3-1986. The said scheme was regulated under Rules 57A to 57J of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 57A entitled a manufacturer to take instant credit of the central excise duty paid on the inputs used by him in the manufacture of the finished product, provided that the input and the finished product were excisable commodities and fell under any of the specified chapters in the tariff schedule. Under Rule 57G, every manufacturer was required to file a declaration before the jurisdictional Assistant Collector, declaring his intention to take Modvat credit after pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is appellant in the present case. This view stands corroborated from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Coimbatore Murugan Mills reported in 2003 (160) E.L.T. 825. 9. Above all, the allegation of the show cause notice are pointing merely a procedural lapse. Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Sambhaji vs. Gangabhai reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) has held that all rules of procedures are handmaids of justice. Language employed by draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent but object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. It was held that no party should ordinarily be denied opportunity of participating in process of justice dispensation in an adversarial system. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
