M/S. N C Cable Ltd vs C.C.E. Delhi-Ii

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 135/CE/D-II/12 dated 02.01.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), New Delhi].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. N C Cable Ltd. .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. Delhi-II .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 25.02.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 50485/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

This appeal has been filed by M/s. N C Cable Ltd. for seeking waiver of pre deposit and stay of recovery of duty amounting to Rs.1,01,558/- and equal amount of penalty imposed for them and confirmed by CCE (Appeals).

2. The issue involves in the present appeal is whether invoices should be properly printed, serially numbered and should contain all the details as required under Central Excise Rule, 1944. The Revenue has relied on para 3.2 of Chapter IV of CBECs Excise manual of supplementary instructions in which it is mentioned that serial number can be given at the time of printing or by using franking machine. Hand written serial number shall not be accepted. Relying on these instructions, both the lower authorities confirmed the demand against the appellant and imposed the penalty.

3. Heard both the sides.

4. I find that the rule 11(2) which existed during relevant period reads as under:-

11(2). The invoice shall be serially numbered and shall contain the registration number, description, classification, time and date of removal, rate of duty, quantity and value, of goods and the duty payable thereon.

5. From the reading of the Rule 11(2), it is noticed that the requirement of printed, serially numbered is not mentioned in the rule. Moreover, I find that the Tribunal in the case of PepsiCo India Holding Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (284) E.L.T. 514 (Tri-Mumbai) has held that there is no requirement under rule 11 of Central Excise Rule, 1944 that invoice number should be printed on the invoices. In these circumstances I find that appellant has not violated the provision of Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

6. Therefore, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

3

E/56632/2013-EX(SM)