2016 (6) TMI 616 - AT - Central Excise

Validity of Bill of Entry with the endorsement on a separate sheet of paper made in pursuance with the Circular No. 179/13/96-CX dated 29.2.1996 for the purpose of availing credit - Held that - The said Circular initially permitted availment of credit on the basis of Bill of Entry with endorsement by the proper officer of Customs. Later on on 22.3.006 the requirement of endorsement of Proper Officer of Customs was done away. Therefore in terms of Circular the importers endorsement was sufficient. In view of the above the endorsements done by the importer become sufficient for the purpose of availement of credit on the strength of Bill of Entry. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues: Denial of CENVAT credit based on Bill of Entry in the name of principal manufacturer, Circular permitting credit on endorsed Bill of Entry, requirement of Customs Officer endorsement, validity of Bill of Entry for availing credit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Organic Chemicals and Laboratory Reagents on job-work basis, faced denial of CENVAT credit as the Bill of Entry was in the name of principal manufacturers, not in their name. Appeals were filed against the denial of credit based on such documents, including one where the appellant cleared the import to the principal manufacturer and reversed the credit. The main contention was the denial of credit due to the Bill of Entry being in the name of the principal manufacturer.

2. The appellant argued citing Circular No. 179/13/96-CX and Public Notice No. 16/2006, which permitted credit on the strength of endorsed Bill of Entry without the requirement of endorsement by the Customs Officer. The appellant contended that at the time, the procedure did not mandate Customs Officer endorsement for goods intended for job work. Reference was made to a Bombay High Court decision emphasizing that the document for availing credit need not be in the name of the credit taker, supported by a Supreme Court ruling.

3. The learned AR relied on the impugned order, while the Tribunal analyzed the submissions. The Tribunal noted that the issue was not about the receipt or use of goods by the appellants but the validity of the Bill of Entry with endorsement for availing credit. It was observed that the Circular initially required endorsement by the Customs Officer, which was later dispensed with. Therefore, as per the Circular, the importer's endorsement sufficed for credit availing purposes based on the Bill of Entry.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the importer's endorsements on the Bill of Entry were adequate for availing credit. The judgment was pronounced on 13.04.2016 by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of denial of CENVAT credit, Circular provisions, the requirement of Customs Officer endorsement, and the validity of Bill of Entry for credit availing purposes, culminating in the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals based on the importer's endorsements as per the Circular guidelines.