ORDER
K. Sankararaman, Member (T)
1. These three appeals involving a common issue are directed against a common order-in-original No. 63 to 65-CE/95 dated 27-4-1995 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh who confirmed duty demands of Rs. 22,36,936.98, Rs. 12,18,716.78 and Rs. 27,87,098.37 covered by number of show cause notices for the same amounts. The demands arose as a result of disallowing Modvat credit availed by the appellants on the strength of challans issued by the Ludhiana Depot of Steel Authority of India and invoices issued by others. The Collector held that the challans did not contain the necessary particulars as required under Notification No. 15/94 regarding the particulars of rate of duty and amount of duty paid on the inputs in question. In addition the Collector imposed penalties of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- in respect of the three show cause notices. The present appeals have been filed challenging the said orders.
2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the main charge in the show cause notices which has been sustained in the impugned order is that the challans issued by SAIL and produced by them as evidence of payment of duty did not contain the required particulars. In the second notice an additional charge was levelled that the party issuing the challans was neither the wholesale dealer nor the distributor of the concerned manufacturer but this charge was dropped by the Collector. In the third notice, in addition to the charge contained in the other notices, namely the non furnishing of the required particulars of duty payment, there was the charge that some of the persons who had issued the invoices were neither the manufacturers nor dealers who were registered as required. Shri Anand, learned counsel contended that the challans/invoices contained all the details except the rate of duty in words. He referred to the following decisions of the Tribunal and pleaded that the defects, if any, in the documents, were remediable ones. These have also been remedied.
Siyaram Platex P. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise – 1994 (4) RLT 119.
Amal Rasayan Ltd. v. CCE -1993 (67) E.L.T. 133.
Jain Kaliaivala Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE -1994 (72) E.L.T. 908.
Usha Associates v. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara – 1995 (78) E.L.T. 281.
3. Heard Shri J. Singh, learned Departmental Representative. He supported the order and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeals.
4. We have considered the submissions and gone through the record. We have perused the decisions cited in support of the appeal as also the relevant Rules and the Notifications and circular issued by the Government under which the different documents evidencing the payment of duty and the format thereof have been prescribed. The Collector had referred to these Notifications and circular observed in his order that as per the claim of the appellants’ counsel the invoices in question had only the name of the manufacturer, advice number and date under which duty was paid rate of duty and amount thereof and thus the invoices did not fall in the ambit of the circular No. 78/76/94-CX., dated 8-11-1994 issued by the Board. He has also held that it was not known if persons other than the stockyard of SAIL had got themselves registered under Rule 57-GG.
5. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the only deficiency in the challans and invoices is the non-mention of the amount of duty in words. With regard to the finding that some of the invoices had been issued by persons who had not been registered, it has been contended that the registration as required has been got done subsequently and such registration would regularise the documents issued by the concerned persons. A few Tribunal decisions had been cited where rectification of certain difficulties in the Gate Passes/invoices had been held to be acceptable. The impugned order does not take into account these aspects of the matter. We also find that the copies of the certificate issued by Steel Authority of India, Ludhiana contain the opening remarks “Details of Excise duty paid by our Steel Plant and the same was passed by us to Jain Steel Industries MGvg as under”. Under this the following are given:
“Plant Name, CA No. CA quantity. Duty Rate, Duty Paid, Ex Duty per Ton under the Broad Heading Manufacturer’s Detail (Plant). Under the other Broad Heading Detail of Challan issued by SAIL Ludhiana the following information has been furnished – CHN No. Date, Quantity, Duty Rate, Ex Duty passed, Rate PMT and description of goods.”
The non-mention of the duty amount in words is a remedial defect which should not deprive the appellants of the benefits, if other details are sufficient. The details require to be checked with reference to the challans themselves produced by the appellants and their records like RG 23A Part I and Part II. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter for de novo decision. The appeals are allowed by remand.