9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (8) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
- Denial of Modvat credit on imported inputs due to discrepancies in Bill of Entry. - Requirement of further endorsement by Customs on Bill of Entry for validity as a duty paying document. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai dealt with an appeal against the denial of Modvat credit on imported inputs based on discrepancies in the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the denial citing differences in the Bill of Lading numbers between the agreement and the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner also noted the absence of required endorsements on the Bill of Entry as per prescribed procedures. The appellant argued, citing a Tribunal decision, that the absence of supporting endorsements should not lead to denial of Modvat credit. The Tribunal carefully examined the High Sea Sale agreement between the appellant and the importer, finding that the details matched with the Bill of Lading despite the noted discrepancy in the Bill of Lading numbers. The agreement specified the transfer of rights and responsibilities upon endorsing the Bill of Lading to the buyer. The Tribunal noted that the full quantity covered by the Bill of Entry had been received by the appellant, even though there was no Customs endorsement on the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal applied the precedent from the Tribunal decision cited by the appellant, emphasizing that the absence of Customs endorsement was a procedural lapse and did not warrant denial of Modvat credit. The ld. JDR argued that the Customs endorsement on the Bill of Entry was a necessary requirement for it to be considered a valid duty paying document for Modvat credit. However, the Tribunal found that the absence of this endorsement was a procedural issue that did not affect the validity of the Bill of Entry as a duty paying document in this case. The Tribunal concluded that since the entire consignment had been received by the appellant and the lapse was procedural, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
