9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has been disallowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue was accepted by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner. 2. The following substantial question of law arises in the present appeal :- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in denying the modvat credit when the imported metal scrap has been cleared on the strength of out of custom charge gate passes by the clearing agent and duly authenticated by the seal of Commissioner of Customs Kandla Port in piecemeal and as such the material reached the factory on 20-8-1996 and 7-11-1996 and the modvat credit was taken on 21-8-1976 and 7-11-1996?" 3. The appellant-Company is a manufacturer of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72. It imported approximatel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q(bb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant filed appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated 11-9-1993, Annexure A-4 and vide said order, MODVAT credit was allowed. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and has disallowed the MODVAT credit, as claimed by the appellant, vide order Annexure A-9. 5. It is this order which has been impugned before us. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that imported metal scrap was received at Kandla Port and they filed a Bill of Entry of clearance of the same on 12-1-1996, and also paid the duty thereon on 20-1-1996. The goods were despatched from the Kand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case the appellant was not entitled to any MODVAT credit in view of Rule 57G(3) and Rule 57G(5) of The Central Excise Rules, 1944. 8. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the metal scrap had reached the Kandla Port on 12-1-1996 and duty was paid on 20-1-1996, however, the release of the goods is subject to clearance by the Port Authorities. In the present case, nothing has been shown by the Revenue that the assessee was at fault in not getting the goods cleared, specially, when he had paid the duty. The goods had reached the factory premises of the appellant on 20-8-1996 and 18-9-1996, respectively. No loss has been caused to the Revenue as the entire duty was paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
