9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to intimation. I find that this letter dated 17-5-1995 was apparently received in the Asstt. Commissioner s Office on 5-6-1995 (as per endorsement) by which time the transfer had already taken place. I see lot of force in the various grounds of appeal of the Department and allow the appeal. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Rajasthan Polymers and Resins Limited (in short `RPRL ) received a quantity of 150 MT of Styrene Monomer through Bill of Entry No. 3603, dated 15-5-1995 during the period 18-5-1995 to 25-6-1995 and 148.730 MT of Styrene Monomer through Bill of Entry No. 3653, dated 15-5-1995 during the period 25-5-1995 to 5-6-1995 from M/s. Greaves Limited who is a Trading Company of this input. According to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formed on 17-5-1995; that RPRL could not return the material, therefore, they requested the Suppliers M/s. Greaves Limited to issue invoices; that the Asst. Commissioner was informed about this. The ld. Counsel submits that the appellants produced invoices of a Registered dealer subsequent to the date of receipt of the material; that the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Avadh Rubber v. CCE, Allahabad [1996 (85) E.L.T. 382 (T)] held - I agree that the claim for Modvat credit cannot be rejected only on the ground that the inputs were not accompanied by duty paying documents. The rules required that no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under cover of the prescribed duty paying documents. In the present case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of inputs being covered by Gate Passes in question, it is only a procedural lapse and credit was admissible. The ld. Counsel also supported his view by citing the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rajinder Alloys Ltd. [1998 (26) RLT 397]; in the case of M/s. Avadh Rubber [1996 (85) E.L.T. 382] and in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Noble Explochem Ltd. [1996 (88) E.L.T. 372 (T)]. 6. The ld. Counsel submits that the duty paid documents were produced subsequently and that since the Tribunal has been consistently holding that Modvat credit should not be denied if duty paying documents are produced subsequent to the date of receipt of the goods within a reasonable time. The ld. Counsel, therefore, prayed that in view of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Styrene Monomer was imported by M/s. Greaves Limited. Duty was paid under a Bill of Entry. Rule 57G(2) specifically provides that Triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry will be the document for taking Modvat credit of CVD. In the instant case, M/s. Greaves Limited were not the manufacturers of Styrene Monomer, therefore, the only document on the strength of which M/s. RPRL could take Modvat credit was the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry. Nothing was produced before us to prove that triplicate Bill of Entry was produced. Thus, we agree with the finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that proper duty paying documents specified for the purpose of taking Modvat credit was not produced. In this view of the matter, we do not see any reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
