TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under description of 'cable' (copper wire) GR-8647 and under chapter heading 74.08 From the said description it is clear that even though the appellant treated the said copper material as waste & scrap, but the supplier has sold the material as copper wire which is classifiable under chapter heading 74.08. As per the Board Notification No. 342/1/88-TRU MF(DR) dated 12.07.1990 the deemed credit was allowed in respect of copper waste and scrap falling under chapter heading No. 74.04 only. In view of this the deemed credit of MODVAT cannot be allowed on the goods namely copper wire falling under 74.08; therefore I uphold the denial of MODVAT credit. Even if GP-1 was not endorsed in favour of the appellant but if input covered under the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he view that GP-1 of a later date, cannot be considered as a duty paying document in respect of input cleared from the supplier and received by the appellant prior to the date of GP-1 - Appeal disposed of. - Appeal No. E/619/11 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2015 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri Nikhil Kr. Rungta, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri V.K. Shastri, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PKS/500/BEL/2010 dated 19.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai III, wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant submits that:- A. As regard Credit amount of ₹ 56,874.87 the same was availed on the certificate issued in lieu of GP-1 issued under Section 57 G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is his submission that the certificate was issued on 23.02.1992, 03.03.1992, 03.04.1992 and the credit was taken on 14.03.1992, 18.03.1992, 18.04.1992 respectively. Therefore the lower adjudicating authority has wrongly contended that credit taken prior to issue of subsidiary GP-1. More over the certificate in lieu of GP-1 are always issued subsequent to the date of issue GP-1, therefore the appellant has correctly availed credit in view of the above fact appearing on record. (B) As regard credit amount of ₹ 11,880/-, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57 (Tribunal), S.B.S. Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 1999 (45) ELT 701 (Tribunal) and Maschmeijer Aromatics (I) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (46) ELT 395 (Tribunal). (E) As regard credit amount of ₹ 36.396.03 the same was taken in RG 23A part-II, but no accounting of the material have been made in RG 23A Part-I. He submits that the entry was inadvertently not made in RG. 23 A Part-1, however the input was very much received by the appellant and the same was used in the manufacture of final product. The lapse of non-making in RG 23A is due to inadvertently. The objective of RG 23 A Part-I is only to show the receipt of input in the factory. There is no dispute in the fact that the input was received in the appellant s fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (A.R.) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I give my findings in chronological manner as under:- (i) As regard credit amount of ₹ 56,874.87/- which was denied by the lower adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellant has availed credit in RG 23A Part-II on the basis of subsidiary GP-1 at a date prior to the issue of said subsidiary GP-1. I find that the subsidiary GP-1 were issued on 23.02.1992, 03.03.1992 and 03.04.1992 and the credit there against was taken in RG 23A Part-II on 14.03.1992, 18.03.1992 and 18.04.1992 respectively. Therefore the allegation of the Revenue is apparently wrong on the face of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant as the strength of GP-1 which was neither in the name of the appellant nor endorsed in their favour. I am of the view that even if GP-1 was not endorsed in favour of the appellant but if input covered under the said GP-1 was received in the factory, account for the same in records, purchases were booked in the name of the appellant and payment their against was made by the appellant these are satisfactory evidences to established that the inputs covered under the said unendorsed GP-I were received by the appellant and used in the manufacture. However from the proceeding it is observed that such examination were not carried out, therefore I am of the opinion that for the purpose of this verification, the matter should be remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
