Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (11) TMI 1018

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... try cannot be denied – Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/2315/2006- EX[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO:- 57884/2013 - Dated:- 27-9-2013 - Mr. Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Sh. P.K. Sharma, AR For the Respondent : Sh. Jitin Singhal, Advocate JUDGEMENT PER RAKESH KUMAR:- The respondents are engaged in manufacture of cement plant machinery and steel tank chargeable to Central Excise duty. On 15.11.04, they took Cenvat Credit of Rs.1,55,324/- in respect of certain imported inputs on the basis of Bill of entry dt.01.11.04. The Bill of entry was in the name of M/s. Humboldt Weldog India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi who had imported those inputs. However, as stated by the Commissioner(Appeals) in para 6 of the impugned order, thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peals) mainly relying upon the judgment of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd., Vs. CCE, Kanpur, reported in 2000(116) ELT-(364) wherein it was held that during period w.e.f. 01.04.94, an invoice which is issued by a manufacturer in the name of a person and it merely contains an endorsement by that person in favour of another manufacturer, is not a valid document for taking Cenvat Credit by the other manufacture in whose favour the invoice is endorsed, as in term of the Provisions of the Rules, it is only an invoice issued by manufacturer or a registered dealer which is a valid document for Cenvat Credit and endorsement by a person on the invoice issued by the manufacturer cannot substitute the invoice issu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Pradesh Vs. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj, AIR 1963 (S.C.) 946 where in it was held that what is not permissible under the statutory rules, cannot be held to be permissible by the Tribunal by stretching the wordings of the circular of the Board. He, therefore, pleaded that impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct. 4. Sh. Jatin Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent, pleaded that there is no dispute that the inputs imported by M/s. Humboldt Weldog India Pvt. Ltd. on which the additional custom duty had been paid had been sold to the Respondent and that the Bill of entry had been endorsed in favour of the Respondent, that there is no dispute that the goods, in question, covered by the Bill of entry were received in the f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... perused the records. The fact of the case as stated in the impugned order are not disputed. The good imported by M/s. Humboldt Weldog India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi under the Bill of entry, in question, filed by them had been sold by them to the respondent and had been received in their factory for manufacture and the Bill of entry filed by M/s. Humboldt Weldog India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, under which the goods had been cleared from customs, has been endorsed in favour of the respondent. The only point of the dispute is as to whether the Bill of entry which is not in the name of the appellant but is in the name of M/s. Humboldt Weldog India Pvt. Ltd., and has been endorsed by them in favour of the respondent, is a valid document for taking Cenva .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ering the above mentioned judgment of Larger bench of the Tribunal has in para 10 of the judgment held that since Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not require that Bill of entry should be in the name of the person claiming credit of duty and there was no provision regarding endorsement of the Bill of entry, Modvat Credit on the basis of such bill of entry cannot be denied. 7. In my view the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of M/s Marmagoa Steel Ltd. is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Moreover Hon ble Gujrat High Court also in its judgment in case of Vimal Enterprises (Supra) has after discussing the Tribunal s judgment, has taken a contrary view. In view of this I do not find any merit in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates