2002 (2) TMI 957 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 6,79,508.75 to the assessee.
2. Denial of CVD credit of Rs. 6,29,823/- on imported goods.
3. Appeal by Revenue on credits of Rs. 2,95,900/- and Rs. 4,31,594.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Modvat Credit of Rs. 6,79,508.75
The appeal pertains to the denial of Modvat credit by the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee's appeal challenges the disallowance of Rs. 6,79,508.75, while the Revenue's appeal contests the allowance of Rs. 7,27,494/-. The dispute revolves around the validity of documents supporting the credit. The Tribunal examined the endorsed gate passes and commercial invoices to ascertain the correlation between the goods covered. The Tribunal found sufficient correlation between the invoices and gate passes, allowing the Modvat credit of Rs. 49,684.85. The decision was supported by a precedent (Moosa Haji Patrawala [1996 (83) E.L.T. 620]), and the Revenue failed to challenge its applicability.

Issue 2: Denial of CVD Credit of Rs. 6,29,823/- on Imported Goods
The denial of CVD credit on imported goods worth Rs. 6,29,823/- was based on the alleged clearance of goods to a different location than the assessee's factory. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the address correction on the Bills of Entry, noting that the goods were indeed received and utilized in the assessee's factory as declared. The authorities failed to consider relevant documents supporting the correct address. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the denial of the credit was unjustified, and the full amount of Rs. 6,79,508.75 was deemed admissible to the assessee.

Issue 3: Appeal by Revenue on Credits of Rs. 2,95,900/- and Rs. 4,31,594
The Revenue's appeal focused on credits of Rs. 2,95,900/- and Rs. 4,31,594. The first amount was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on a precedent (Moosa Haji Patrawala), which deemed the credit admissible despite the endorsement date. The second amount, initially disallowed due to non-pre-authenticated invoices, was later permitted by the Commissioner (Appeals), citing the decision in Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore. The Tribunal upheld both decisions, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, reinstating the denied credits, while rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The assessee was entitled to consequential reliefs as per the judgment.