1998 (6) TMI 349 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
The appeal involved the disallowance of Modvat credit based on the validity of a re-constructed triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry.

Summary:
The appellants imported inputs for use as raw material in their factory and took Modvat credit based on the original triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry. Due to misplacement, they obtained a re-constructed copy from Customs. The Revenue disallowed the credit, stating the re-constructed copy was not valid. The appellants argued they availed credit on the original copy, which was misplaced later. The Revenue did not dispute this. The Additional Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. The appellants cited a Tribunal case allowing credit based on a certified copy of the Bill of Entry.

The Department argued that Rule 57G(2) specifies documents for credit, including the triplicate copy, not re-constructed copies. They referenced cases where credit was denied due to missing original documents. They emphasized the need for strict compliance to prevent misuse and cited cases supporting this stance.

The appellants contended that the Department did not challenge their claim of using the original triplicate copy for credit. They distinguished a case cited by the Department, stating it did not apply here. They mentioned an ongoing rectification application and highlighted the difference between invoices and Bill of Entry copies.

The Tribunal noted that the Department did not dispute the receipt and use of imported inputs by the appellants. The issue was the validity of the attested copy of the triplicate Bill of Entry. The appellants consistently maintained they used the original copy for credit. Since the Department did not contest the receipt of goods under the original copy, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing them to avail Modvat credit based on the presented attested copy.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellants were eligible for Modvat credit as they had substantially complied with the requirements, and presenting a re-constructed copy of the Bill of Entry should not hinder their credit eligibility. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.