9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd S - invoice, i.e. dealers invoice, was not in their name. (ii) Dealer's invoices are not issued by dealer/distributor of original manufacturer. (iii) Dealers invoices are not original and/or authentical. The Additional Commissioner after considering the submissions - (i) Credits on disputed consignments has been availed after observing all statutory requirements involving declaration. (ii) There is no dispute raised about physical receipt or its admissibility. The dispute is about technical validity of documents. (iii) The Bills of entry in the name of M/s. Hi-Tek Pharmaceutical would be valid since goods have been received as evident by mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave their head office at Ralli House, 21 D.S. Marg, Mumbai. It was submitted that Rallis India Ltd. manufactures various chemicals for M/s. Hi-Tek Pharma, as loan license basis and therefore, the raw material was transferred to them by M/s. Hi-Tek and therefore, they have taken Modvat credit on the basis of Bill of Entries which were in the name of M/s. Hi-Tek Pharma and the Bills of Entry also bear the address of their Head Office as Ralli House, 21, D. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai. However, on being asked, the appellants submitted that M/s. Hi-Tek had also their Head Office at Ralli House, 21, D. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai and therefore, address of the Head Office given on the Bills of Entries was that of Head Office of M/s. Hi-Tek Pharma and not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve purchased their goods directly from the manufacturer and, therefore, these invoices cannot be considered as valid duty paying document. In view of this, I hold that credit of Rs. 16,845/- has been incorrectly allowed by Addl. Commissioner and I accordingly set aside the same. The respondents then referred to the invoice listed at Sr. Nos. 15 and 17 of the show cause notice dated 21-9-94, involving and amount of Rs. 5,160/- wherein credit was sought to be denied on the ground that the invoices were not original. Respondents submitted that under the law credit is required to be taken only on the duplicate copy. They submitted that they are in possession of both the original as well as duplicate copy and, therefore, credit should not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoice was not in the name of the respondents, credit should not have been taken by him as endorsements invoice was not allowed as has been held in number of cases i.e. Commissioner v. Erose Pharma - 1996 (14) RLT 457 (T), Simplex Mills v. CCE - 1997 (71) ECR 575 (T), Poddar Udyog v. CCE - 1997 (22) RLT 172 (T). I, therefore, set aside the order of the Addl. Commissioner in respect of this invoice and allow the departmental appeal. With regard to invoice pertaining to RG 23A Pt. II entry No. 31, dated 7-8-94, Sr. No. 13 if show cause notice dated 21-9-94 involving an amount of Rs. 709/- credit was sought to be denied on the ground that the invoice was not authenticated by the original manufacturer. The respondents submitted that the invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the finding of the Addl. Commissioner that a declaration was filed by the importer i.e. M/s. Hi-Tek Pharma with the Customs Authorities at the time of import and assessement of the B/Es in question that credit would be availed at the factory at Aurangabad. Relying on the decision in the case of Crop Health Production Ltd. [1998 (202) E.L.T. 376] wherein, the two Member Bench of this Tribunal have held that goods manufactured by the appellants on behalf of any other company, the manufacturer would be entitled to avail Modvat credit although invoices were issued in the name of the other company, the credit on these B/Es as denied by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be upheld. The order on the Addl. Commissioner granting the credit is req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
