2000 (5) TMI 643 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Availing Modvat credit on capital goods imported by a holding partnership firm.
- Discrepancy in importer's name on Bill of Entries and actual recipient.
- Applicability of Board's Circular No. 179/13/96-CX.
- Verification of goods receipt and installation in appellant's premises.
- Interpretation of procedural irregularities in Modvat credit availing.

Analysis:
The case involved a Revenue appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original regarding the availing of Modvat credit on capital goods imported by a holding partnership firm. The goods were imported in 1994 by M/s. Star Filament Corporation but received by M/s. Swastik Filament Corporation, leading to a discrepancy in the importer's name on the Bill of Entries and the actual recipient.

The Revenue argued that since the goods were imported by a different firm than the one receiving them, the Modvat credit was incorrectly availed. They cited Board's Circular No. 179/13/96-CX, emphasizing non-compliance with the prescribed procedure. However, the appellant contended that the Circular could not be applied retrospectively as it was issued after the goods' importation in 1994.

The appellant further argued that all necessary verifications were conducted to confirm that M/s. Swastik Filament Corporation was a unit of M/s. Star Filament Corporation, the main partnership firm. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) found that the goods were indeed received by the correct entity, and the Modvat credit was not duplicated.

The Tribunal analyzed the facts presented and emphasized that the goods were received and installed in the appellant's premises, a unit of the importing firm, prior to the Circular's issuance. They referenced a previous case to support the allowance of Modvat credit despite technical procedural irregularities. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, being a unit of the importing firm, should not be denied the benefit of Modvat credit based on the discrepancy in the importer's name. The Revenue appeal was rejected based on these findings.