2004 (6) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether Cenvat credit on capital goods is available based on an endorsed Bill of Entry for part consignment.

Analysis:
In the appeal filed by M/s. Urastan Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., the issue revolves around the availability of Cenvat credit on capital goods using an endorsed Bill of Entry for part consignment. The appellant argued that the endorsed Bill of Entry is a valid document for availing Cenvat credit, citing a Board's Circular allowing manufacturers to take credit based on such endorsements. They also relied on previous judgments supporting the validity of endorsed Bill of Entry as a duty-paying document. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the circular permits credit only under specific conditions, including a declaration on the Bill of Entry, which was not fulfilled in this case. They emphasized procedural requirements for split consignments and highlighted that goods were not directly sent to the appellants' premises. The Revenue also pointed out discrepancies regarding lease agreements and the transfer of part consignments from docks.

The Tribunal examined the submissions from both sides and considered the import of capital goods by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. The circular dated 29-2-1996 allows a manufacturing unit to claim credit if the importer declares transferring goods to the unit on the Bill of Entry. In this case, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. made declarations for consignments to both M/s. VEE GEE Enterprises and M/s. Urastan Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., specifying the consignees separately. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute duty payment or receipt of goods by the appellants. It was observed that the declarations were signed by the proper Customs officer, meeting the circular requirements. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument regarding procedural lapses and emphasized compliance with the circular's specified documents for availing Cenvat credit. The Tribunal also addressed the Revenue's contentions about the goods' route to the appellants' premises, highlighting that such issues were not raised in the show cause notice. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that delays in goods reaching the appellants' premises should not hinder credit availability if all circular requirements are met.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, affirming the appellants' right to avail Cenvat credit based on the endorsed Bill of Entry for part consignment, as per the circular's provisions and previous judicial interpretations.