2006 (3) TMI 56 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat Appellant is importer and he took credit on the strength of photocopy of BOE duly certified by the bankers and notary public Department contention is that appellant wrongly availed the credit -After considering al the facts matter decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues involved:
Denial of Modvat credit based on Bill of Entry presented by the appellants.

Analysis:

The appeal revolves around the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants due to the misplacement of the Triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry for imported goods. The appellants imported various capital goods in 1998 but lost the Triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry. Despite lodging a police complaint and requesting reconstruction of the Bill of Entries, they took credit based on a certified photocopy. The Department alleged that the credit was wrongly claimed using ineligible duty paying documents, leading to a Show-Cause-Notice in 2002. The matter was adjudicated with duty demand, interest, and penalties imposed, prompting the appeal.

During the hearing, the appellants' counsel highlighted the evolving procedures for availing Cenvat credit, noting changes in rules over the years. The previous Rule 57G allowed credit based on the Triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry, which was later replaced by Rule 57AE and eventually Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000. The Commissioner (A) failed to consider the latest rules and only referred to old provisions, indicating an error. The appellants presented a notarized photocopy of the Bill of Entry along with a certificate from the proper officer and relied on legal precedents supporting the use of authenticated invoices and various copies of the Bill of Entry for credit.

Considering these aspects, the Tribunal found it necessary to remand the matter to the Commissioner (A) for reconsideration based on the latest Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing the eligibility of the Bill of Entry as a valid document for credit. The Tribunal instructed the Commissioner (A) to reexamine the case within three months, taking into account the cited case laws and the updated provisions. As a result, the appeal was allowed for remand in the specified terms, ensuring a fair reconsideration of the Modvat credit issue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, procedural aspects, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for proper adjudication based on the current rules and precedents.