TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai also on reference. There the question was whether the numbering of the invoice could be by stamping from a franking machine in order to satisfy the requirements under the provisions contained in Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), 1944. After an elaborate consideration of the different views expressed by different Benches and on examination of the relevant provisions of law, we came to the conclusion that if the serial numbers are stamped from a franking machine or stamping machine or typed by typewriter it is sufficient compliance with the rules. Since there is an elaborate consideration of the decided cases in the above order, we do not propose to go into all those decisions again in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity further held that credit amounting to Rs. 11,703.78 is to be disallowed on the invoices issued after 19-1-95 not bearing the words 'duplicate for transporter' printed on them. Aggrieved with the above order, the respondents herein filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals). The appellate authority relying on certain decisions of this Tribunal took the view that since the assessee had complied with the substantial requirements of the Modvat Scheme, any procedural irregularities like serial numbers not being printed or 'duplicate for transporter' not marked on invoices would not disentitle the assessee for taking Modvat credit. The appellate authority has noted that it is an admitted fact that the input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favour of the assessee :- (1) Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 145 (2) R.T. Packaging Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 1998 (26) RLT 602 (CEGAT) (3) 1998 (103) E.L.T. 77 (T) = 1998 (78) ECR 583 (Tribunal) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur In Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (106) E.L.T. 145, an order passed by a Single Member, it was held that if the invoice did not bear printed serial number and if the marking as 'duplicate for transporter' was made by rubber stamp on the invoice instead of printing it can be considered only as the remedial technical lapse which should not result in denying the Modvat credit. There is no specific consideration of the effect of invoices containing serial numbers in hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dustan Radiators Co. v. CCE, Jaipur, 1999 (32) RLT 206 (CEGAT) this question directly arose for consideration. The serial numbers on the invoices issued by MMTC Ltd., Jaipur, a Government of India Enterprise, were not printed but were put by hand. Still it was held that a substantive benefit of Modvat credit cannot be denied on account of procedural infractions if the essential requirements of the Modvat Scheme were duly complied with and the benefit was otherwise due on merits. The fact that the duty paid goods were supplied by a Public Sector Undertaking against invoices and the goods were received and utilised in the manufacture of specified products and the correctness of the invoice was not in doubt were noted and held that the departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
