2003 (5) TMI 409 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit of CVD due to lack of stamped seal and signature on Bills of Entry.
2. Validity of TR-6 challans as proof of payment of customs duty.
3. Requirement of certificate from customs officer for availing Modvat credit.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were denied Modvat credit of CVD amount paid on imported inputs due to the absence of stamped seals and signatures on the Bills of Entry by the certifying assessing officer of Customs. The denial was based on this procedural deficiency, leading to the present appeal challenging the decision.

2. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the denial of credit was unjustified as there was no dispute regarding the duty-paid nature of the goods or their utilization in the manufacturing process. The counsel also contended that the TR-6 challans, which evidenced payment of customs duties, were not accepted as valid proof by the authorities. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal decision where a similar challan, along with a certificate from the Central Excise Superintendent, was deemed sufficient proof for Modvat credit.

3. Upon examination of the submissions and case law, it was observed that the correlatibility between the TR-6 challans and the Bills of Entry had not been adequately assessed by the lower authorities. While the appellant's argument regarding the acceptance of TR-6 challans was acknowledged, it was noted that a certificate from the customs officer was also necessary for availing Modvat credit, as per established procedures. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the original authority with directions to re-adjudicate the issue considering the TR-6 challans along with appropriate certificates from the customs officer.

4. The appellate tribunal set aside the decisions of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal by remanding the case for re-examination. The original authority was instructed to review the TR-6 challans in conjunction with certificates from the customs officer, which the appellant must obtain and present. The authority was directed to provide a fair opportunity for the party to be heard and issue a detailed order after the re-evaluation process.