2002 (5) TMI 729 - AT - Central Excise

Issues: Interpretation of Board's Circular dated 23-2-89 regarding endorsement on certificates for availing Modvat credit.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, the appellant had previously raised an issue regarding the demand of duty based on a certificate endorsed by the jurisdictional Superintendent for taking credit. The Tribunal referred to Circular No. 253/26/68-CX issued by the Board and observed that a previous decision would apply to the appellant's case. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. The appellant contended that they were entitled to the benefit of the Board's Circular dated 23-2-89 and should not be faulted for taking credit based on the endorsed certificate. The Commissioner rejected this argument, stating that the Circular referred to endorsement by canalizing agencies, not private parties. The Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the Circular allowed for endorsement by agencies like MMTC/STC/SAIL and subsidiary gate passes issued by Range Officers to be endorsed once for availing Modvat credit if the entire material covered by the document is sent to another person. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's interpretation incorrect and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

This judgment revolves around the interpretation of the Board's Circular dated 23-2-89 concerning the endorsement on certificates for availing Modvat credit. The appellant's entitlement to credit based on a certificate endorsed by the jurisdictional Superintendent was in question. The Tribunal clarified that the Circular permitted endorsement by specified agencies and Range Officers for availing credit, provided the entire material covered by the document was transferred. The Commissioner's rejection of the appellant's claim was deemed incorrect as the Circular did not restrict endorsement to only subsidiary gate passes issued by the Superintendent. The Tribunal emphasized the wording of the Circular and rejected the Revenue's contention, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

This judgment highlights a dispute over the interpretation of the Board's Circular dated 23-2-89 regarding the endorsement on certificates for availing Modvat credit. The appellant argued that they were entitled to credit based on a certificate endorsed by the Range Superintendent, citing the Circular's provisions. The Commissioner, however, rejected this claim, stating that the Circular only allowed endorsement by canalizing agencies, not private parties. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's interpretation, noting that the Circular permitted endorsement by specified agencies and Range Officers for availing credit under certain conditions. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision to be a misdirection and set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant.

← Previous Next →