ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows :-
The respondents herein the month of April and May, 1995 availed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,56,877/- on invoices issued by supplier of inputs which did not mention at all the mode of transport and the motor vehicle numbers by which the goods were allegedly received in the respondent’s factory. Revenue has considered this omission in the invoices to be a very vital omission and has proposed to disallow the Modvat credit by issuing of show cause notice. The show cause notice however, was dropped by the Asstt. Commissioner holding that omission to give the mode of transport and motor vehicle number, if any, was merely a procedural lapse and therefore it is not a serious offence to deny the Modvat credit. On the same finding the revenue did not succeed in appeal before the lower appellate authority. Hence, this appeal by the revenue.
2. Ld. JDR Shri A.M. Tilak for revenue submitted that particulars which an invoice is required to contain has been prescribed by the Board and the various Collectors on the strength of the Central Excise Rules. One of the important particulars mentioned therein is the mode of transport and if it is a motor vehicle, the registration number of the motor vehicle. These two things he submits were not available in the invoices on the strength of which the respondents had taken the Modvat credit. It is therefore, submitted that the invoice has become an invalid document for the purpose of availing Modvat credit. He, therefore, prays that the Modvat credit be disallowed and the impugned order be set aside.
3. Opposing the contention Shri B.L. Ghai, Partner of the respondent firm submits that omission to mention mode of transport and the motor vehicle registration number etc., are only minor procedural lapse and it should be ignored. He submits that it is a well settled proposition that substantive benefit of Modvat credit should not be denied merely on the basis of minor procedural deviations or omissions. He further submits that this is a fault of the supplier of the inputs. It is not the respondent’s fault. He also further points out that the invoices were accompanied by goods receipt which shows the motor vehicle number. He therefore, submits that the lapse is only procedural and should be ignored. The goods receipt also contains other particulars like the name of the purchaser, the description of the product, the weight of the consignment. These particulars tally with the particulars given in the invoices. It is therefore, submitted by him that the appeal of revenue should be dismissed.
4. In his rejoinder Shri A.M. Tilak, JDR submits that although the goods receipts have been produced by the partner of the respondent firm but there is no correlation of the reference no. of the goods receipts or of the invoices in the other document. In the absence of any correlation it cannot be said that the goods receipts produced by the respondent firm refers to the invoice in question.
5. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. Question before me to decide in this case is whether the omission of ‘mode of transport’ and if it is carried by motor vehicle, omission to mention the motor vehicle number is a vital omission from the invoice leading to denial of Modvat credit or it is a minor omission which should not come in the way of allowing the Modvat credit. I am of the view that the ‘mode of transport’ is very important for the purpose of en route checking of the goods by the officers of the revenue. It cannot therefore be held as has been held by the lower authorities that omission to mention the mode of transport in the invoices is a minor procedural lapse and therefore, should be ignored. In my view, it is one of the important things, and goes to the root of the matter. It casts doubt on the receipt of the material itself by the respondents. Reliance placed by the respondent’s representative Shri B.L. Ghai on the goods receipt is also not of much weight in-as-much as there is no cross-reference between the invoice and the goods receipt. In the absence of any cross-reference correlation between the two documents becomes impossible. Correlation by way of name of the consignor, description of goods, weight of the goods is not conclusive. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the respondents are not entitled to the Modvat credit in the present case. Hence, I set aside the impugned order and disallow the Modvat credit. Appeal of the revenue is thus, allowed.