1995 (11) TMI 140 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 114 & 115/91 (48 & 49 BED) CE/Ahd/Collr(A) dated 18-2-1991
- Appeal E/67/91Bom against Order-in-Appeal No. 474/90/61-BRD/CEX/AHD/Collr(A) dated 25-10-1990
- Interpretation of Modvat credit eligibility based on consignment transfer and endorsements

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three appeals consolidated due to the common issue involved. The Respondents received consignments of coils initially supplied by SAIL under invoices issued to M/s. Kanoi Steel Corporation, who endorsed the gate passes for the transfer to the Respondents. The Respondents claimed MODVAT credit on the coils, which was initially objected to by the Department. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands, but the Collector (Appeals) set them aside in the impugned orders.

The Department's contention, represented by Shri V.K. Puri, was that the consignments should have been received under subsidiary gate passes when part of the consignment was transferred. They argued that the endorsements by M/s. Kanoi Steel Corporation were not valid for Modvat Credit as per the Board's directions. The Department highlighted discrepancies in dates on invoices and endorsements to support their position that the transfer was not remnants eligible for concessions under Trade Notices.

On the other hand, Shri M.H. Patil, representing the Respondents, argued that the Collector (Appeals) considered the factual position and concluded that only part consignments were received. He emphasized that the endorsements on gate passes and invoices, along with the approval in Trade Notices, justified the Respondents' entitlement to Modvat Credit and should not be denied.

Upon review of submissions and records, the judgment acknowledged the endorsements by M/s. Kanoi Steel Corporation but noted that the Board's letter deemed such endorsements inadequate for Modvat Credit. However, subsequent Trade Notices permitted endorsements for part consignments, raising the question of whether the received goods could be classified as remnants. The judgment discussed the Collector (Appeals)'s view that the transfer constituted remnants, supported by factual appreciation and entitlement of the Respondents to Modvat Credit. The judgment upheld the Collector (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the factual findings were not misdirected, and there was no reason to interfere with the conclusion based on the Trade Notices and endorsements.

In conclusion, the appeals were rejected based on the Collector (Appeals)'s satisfaction that the transfer constituted permissible remnants under the Trade Notices, and the entitlement of the Respondents to Modvat Credit was not challenged.