9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cution of a Dust Extraction System at the premises of M/s. GKW Ltd., Rajasthan for their new cement plant. The goods were warehoused initially and thereafter cleared from the warehouse vide ex-bond Bill of Entry No. 1/45 dated 1-7-1997 for home consumption on payment of customs duties as applicable to Project Import. The duty payment included an amount of Rs. 14,86,180.18 towards Additional Duty (CVD). Since the goods were to be sent to GKW Ltd., who were eligible to take Modvat credit of the Additional Duty paid, the appellants did not take Modvat credit of the C.V.D. at that point of time. There was inordinate delay in the implementation of the cement project of GKW and the goods imported as Project import could not be used for the said p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Ganesh Havanur learned SDR for the Revenue. The learned advocate urged the following points. (1) The assessment of the BE in question under Chapter Sub-heading 7019.90 has taken place only on 8-3-1999 and therefore the credit taken on 15-3-1999 is within the time-limit of six months. (2) Even though originally the assessment was done under Chapter sub-heading 98.01, in view of the unavoidable circumstances, the appellants had to seek for reassessment. They paid the differential duty. Hence the correct amount of duty on the goods under the revised heading of 7019.97 was determined only on 8-3-99. Therefore for the purpose of taking Modvat credit the date of the bill of entry would be 8-3-99 and the same is admissible to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 86. (4) The denial of credit on the ground that the same is taken without having a valid modvatable document is incorrect. The BE itself is a valid duty paying document. The customs receipt is only a supporting document of the BE. The BE itself bears the endorsement to the effect that the additional duty has been paid vide the said customs receipt. Rule 57E is not applicable to the present case as there is no adjustment in duty credit. Rule 57E envisages situation where there exist two persons namely supplier of the inputs and the receiver of the inputs and the demand of duty by the supplier of the input and the taking of credit of the said duty by the receiver of the input. In the present case, the appellants are themselves the impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
