TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory for intended purpose under the cover of relevant documents. The case of the department is that the triplicate copy of bill of entry as required under Clause (c) of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 57G could not be subsequently produced by the assessee for defacement. - Since the triplicate copy of the bill of entry was misplaced and, as such, the assessee obtained from the bank the exchange control copy of the relevant bill of entry and filed the same along with various other documents. He also executed an indemnity in favour of the Central Excise department to the extent of Modvat Credit availed. The said authenticated exchange control copy of the bill of entry obtained by the assessee from the bank could have been easily verified by the authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal invoice/triplicate copy of bill of entry. He submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 57G (3) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), modvat credit was not admissible to the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submits that there is no dispute that at the time when the goods in question were received in the factory of production, the same were covered by all requisite documents including triplicate copy of a bill of entry but subsequently triplicate copy of the bill of entry was misplaced and, as such, the assessee obtained the exchange control copy of the relevant bill of entry from the bank and produced the same before the central excise authority concerned. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill of entry was misplaced. Under the circumstances the assessee obtained from the bank the exchange control copy of the relevant bill of entry and submitted the same before the concerned central excise authority. 7. A show cause notice dated 30th June, 1992 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the modvat credit amounting to ₹ 58,70,993/- should not be demanded and recovered under Rule 57-I of the Rules for failure of the assessee to produce the duty paying document for defacement. The assessee submitted reply and explained the matter. However, being dissatisfied with the reply, the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division-III NOIDA disallowed the modvat credit of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ange control copy of the relevant bill of entry and filed the same along with various other documents. He also executed an indemnity in favour of the Central Excise department to the extent of Modvat Credit availed. The said authenticated exchange control copy of the bill of entry obtained by the assessee from the bank could have been easily verified by the authorities. It is not the case of the appellant that the said document was not verifiable. In the impugned order the Tribunal considered the matter in detail and thereafter recorded the following findings of fact in paragraph No.4 of the impugned order: We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has been the contention of the appellants from the very beginning, that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al that neither the receipt of the goods in the factory under the cover of valid documents nor their use for intended purpose nor its duty paid nature has been doubted by the department, are findings of fact. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding of fact that the modvat credit has been taken by the assessee on the strength of the specified document which got misplaced afterwards. These findings of fact have not been disputed by the appellant even before us. The only contention of the appellant department is that in the absence of triplicate copy of bill of entry, as required under Rule 57G (3) of the Rules, modvat credit was lawfully disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner. We do not agree with this contention on the facts of the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued by a first stage or second stage dealer of imported goods registered under rule 174 and duly authenticated by the proper officer; (k) duplicate copy of a bill of entry generated on Electronic Data Interchange System installed in any Customs or Central Excise Commissionerate; (l) a certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise or by the proper officer in the Customs area under rule 57E; and (m) an invoice issued by a manufacturer of final products under sub-rule (3) of rule 57F or sub-rule (1) of rule 57S. Explanation- For the purposes of this section- (I) first stage dealer means a dealer who purchases the goods directly from- (a) the manufacturer under the cover of an invoice issued under rule 52 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
