9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellants but in the name of another company. The appellants case is that the Bills of Entry had been endorsed in their name and since the Bills of Entry after its endorsement in their name showed them as the recipients of the inputs there was no justification for denying their claim for Modvat credit. The Department contends that where a Bill of Entry shows the name of an importer other than the actual claimant for Modvat and the inputs had not been directly received by the claimant the receipt of the inputs should have been supported by an invoice issued by the importer. The Collector relied on Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 in support. 3. When the matter was called, Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate appeared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered Office or Head Office might have been located at the same premises of the importer, benefit of Board s circular will not apply in the present case since the manufacturing units were located at different places. 5. Learned Counsel submitted that apart from the question of admissibility of endorsed Bill of Entry, in the instant case the Adjudicating Officer has gone beyond issues raised in the show cause notice inasmuch as whereas the show cause notice referred to Notification 32/94, dated 4-7-1994 declaring various types of invoices as admissible duty paying documents, the impugned order had relied on Notification 16/94, dated 30-3-1994 which prescribed G.P.1s issued prior to 1-4-1994 as valid documents for a temporary period of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the rejection of the appeal. 7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. Two short points arise for consideration : (a) whether availment of Modvat credit during the period July, 1994 to September, 1994 on inputs received by a unit registered under Rule 174 on the basis of endorsed Bills of Entry by another registered unit is permissible; (b) whether adjudicating authority can travel beyond the issues raised in the show cause notice. We find that there is no dispute about the fact that original Bills of Entry showed M/s. Ema India Ltd. as the importer and the Bills of Entry were subsequently endorsed in favour of the present appellants. According to the appellants M/s. Ema India Ltd. was the company and the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not in dispute that the present appellants Registered/Head Office and that of Ema India Ltd. were the same. Department has also not disputed the present appellants claim that they are a Division of Ema India Ltd. Though, no doubt both Ema India Ltd. and Gehring India are separately registered under Central Excise Rules, the conditions envisaged under the Board s Circular No. 179/13/96/CX read with No. 211/45/96-CX cannot be said to have been not satisfied in this case merely for the reason that Ema India Ltd. are also availing Modvat credit for their final products. The Department has not disputed the appellants contention that the two units are producing different final products. In these circumstances we do not agree with the view ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
