Loading...

Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 February, 2002

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 (81) ECC 216
Bench: P Bajaj

ORDER

P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 29.12.2000, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original dated 29.12.1999, of the Asstt. Commissioner disallowing the modvat credit of Rs. 1,37,853 to the appellants.

2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.M. Blended Yarn. They availed the modvat credit on the basis of invoices which were unauthenticated and did not bear printed serial numbers. The modvat credit was got reversed from them in their RG-23A, Part-II, register. They accordingly also sent the intimation to the Asstt. Commissioner in that regard wherein they further mentioned that the reversal of the modvat credit had been done by them under protest. Thereafter, the appellants furnished certificate of the Superintendent of Central Excise Range who certified that M/s. V.V. Dyechem (P) Ltd., who issued the invoices, had Central Excise registration which was valid on the date of issuing of the invoices. On the basis of that certificate, the appellants made request for allowing them the modvat credit and the same was accepted and they were allowed to take modvat credit of Rs. 62775 only. For remaining modvat credit of Rs. 1,37,853 their request was disallowed as the dealer M/s. Rajlene Dyechem, who issued the invoices, did not hold valid registration. The modvat credit of this amount was disallowed by the Asstt. Commissioner and that order of the Asstt. Commissioner was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Heard both sides.

4. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not recorded any findings that the Head Office of the company, M/s. Rajlene Dyechem, who issued the invoices, did not possess the Central Excise Registration at the relevant time. No verification of this fact was also done by the Asstt. Commissioner even. The plea of the appellants that the company who issued the invoices did possess the Central Excise registration at the Head Officer but this has not been considered by both the authorities below. If the registration of the company who issued the invoices at the Head Office is proved, this will have material bearing on the right of the appellants to claim the modvat credit. This aspect having been not gone into by both the authorities, below has resulted in the mis-carriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside and the matter must be sent back to the adjudicating authority for deciding the claim of the appellants for modvat credit afresh, in the light of the observations made above, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing.

5. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration.

6. As a result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information