Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs And Central Excise Versus M/s. Matsushita Television And Audio India Ltd.

2015 (8) TMI 1057 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

CENVAT Credit - duty paying document - photo copy of the original invoice/triplicate copy of bill of entry - Whether on the facts and circumstances, the modvat credit can be taken on the basis of the photo-stat copy of BOE - Held that:- there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the goods in question were not received under the cover of the relevant documents and that the goods were duty paid. The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division-III, NOIDA has also not disputed the duty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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.

No credit under Sub Rule (2) shall be taken by the manufacturer, unless the in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent appeal - Decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal Defective No. - 1 of 2005 - Dated:- 25-8-2015 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Appellant : A. Mahajan, S. Chopra For the Respondent : A. P. Mathur ORDER (Per:Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.) 1. Heard Sri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. 2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: ' .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ible 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

production under the cover of valid documents is disputed nor it has been disputed by the Central Excise Authorities that the goods have been used for the intended purpose in the factory of production. He, therefore, submits that in the absence of any dispute with regard to the receipt of the goods in the factory for their intended purpose and the duty paid nature, supported by documents as aforementioned, the credit of duty was lawfully allowed by the Tribunal. He further submits that the findi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Triplicate copy of the relevant bill 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dated 31st March, 2003 against which the assessee preferred Excise Appeal No. 1896 of 2003-NB (B) before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi which was allowed by the impugned final order No. 363 of 2004-B dated 20th February, 2004. Aggrieved with this order the appellant Department has filed the present appeal. 8. We find that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the goods in question were not received under the cover of the relevant documents and th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

triplicate copy of the relevant bill of entry was misplaced, was also not disbelieved either by the Assistant Commissioner or by the first appellate authority. 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 s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rom the very beginning, that the MODVAT Credit has been taken by them on the strength of the specified documents, which got misplaced afterwards and for the said reason the original copy of transport documents could not be produced by them for defacement purposes. In support of their contention, that they have received the goods, they had produced before the Department photo copy of the Transporter copy of the invoice/challan besides other documents. The very fact that they have produced photo c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner about the loss of the duplicate copy of invoice in transit. In the present matter, the specified copy of Bill of Entry and invoices have been misplaced after the receipt of the goods in the factory. Neither the receipt of the goods in the factory nor their use for the intended purpose nor the duty paid nature has been doubted by the Department. In view of these facts, the appellants are eligible to take the MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs. We, therefore, allow the appeal." .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nly 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 present case. 10. Rule 57G(3) of the Rules provides as under: "Rule57G (3):- No credit under sub-rule (2), shall be taken by the manufacturer unless the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of any of the fol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssued by an Appraiser of Customs posted in foreign post office; (e) an invoice issued by a first stage dealer of excisable goods, registered under rule 174; (f) an invoice issued by a second stage dealer of excisable goods registered under rule 174 and duly authenticated by the proper officer; (g) an invoice issued by a dealer on or before the 31st day of August, 1996; (h) an invoice issued by an importer registered under rule 174 and duly authenticated by the proper officer; (i) an invoice issu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version