TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods were suffered payment of duty, those were received in the factory for manufacture of the excisable goods, the proviso contained in Rule 9 was required to be invoked in judicious manner by original authority. Tthe goods covered under the bill of entry were received by the appellant in its factory for use in the intended purpose. Therefore, the Cenvat benefit in respect of CVD amount should be available to the appellant. Appeal allowed. - E/50510/2017-SM - Final Order No. 58409/2017 - Dated:- 6-12-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri J.M. Sharma, Advocate - for the appellant Shri K. Poddar, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a contract manufacturer f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Bhopal vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2016 has upheld the adjudged demand. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.11.2016, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that sodium tripolyphosphate imported vide bill of entry dated 20.1.2009, upon assessment were cleared by the principal manufacturer M/s HUL directly from the port to the factory of the appellant. He also referred to the certificate furnished by M/s HUL (placed at page 30 in the paper book), stating, that total quantity of 150 MT covered under the bill of entry dated 20.1.2009 are intended for use at the unit of IPF Vikram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... document, entitling the appellant to take Cenvat credit. He further submits that the date of certificate produced by the appellant does not correspond to the date of importation of the goods. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. In this case, the fact is not under dispute that the appellant has been engaged by M/s HUL for manufacture of detergent on its behalf. In this case, the disputed goods were imported by M/s HUL and filed bill of entry at the port of import for assessment. Upon assessment of the bill of entry, the goods were diverted to the appellant for further manufacture of detergents. In the Cenvat declaration available in the case file, I find that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva has endor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that he has not applied his mind in a proper way in dispensing with the requirement of the procedural condition of non-mentioning the appellant s name as the consignee in the bill of entry. However, on perusal of the documents available in the case file, I am convinced and satisfied that the goods covered under the bill of entry were received by the appellant in its factory for use in the intended purpose. Therefore, the Cenvat benefit in respect of CVD amount should be available to the appellant. 6. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, after setting aside the same, I allow the appeal in favour of the appellant. (Dictated pronounced in open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
