9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, aluminium foils, paints and varnishes etc. They were issued with show cause notice dated 9-6-1994 demanding duty for availing wrongly Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,29,749/- vide RG 23A, Part II, Entries Nos. 834 & 835, dated 13-12-1993 and Entries Nos. 874 to 877, dated 18-12-1993 on the strength of Bills of Entry Nos. 11470 to 11471, dated 29-10-1993 and Bill of Entry No. 11469, dated 29-10-1993 and Bills of Entry Nos. 11587, 11588 and 11589 all dated 30-9-1993 respectively. It is alleged that although the above mentioned Bill of Entries cover goods, namely, `Electrolytic Tin Plate in Coils' which had been cleared from Bombay port, but however, it appeared from RG 23 Pt. I of the party that the goods namely, `electrolytic tin plate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the show cause notices were taken delivery simultaneously and after an interval of one month delivery of similar goods under Bills of Entry Nos. 11469, 11470, 11471 all dated 29-10-1993 were also taken. Thus they had taken total quantity of 189.540 M.T. under these Bills of Entry were given for shearing to the said party. Since the shearing is a time consuming process and it was not physically possible to bring the entire sheared material in one lot therefore, the goods were brought in stages and when the shearing up material was ready for transportation. Consignment-wise materials were brought into the factory with proper transport documents (G.R and Challans), the same were recorded in the statutory account in the form of RG 23A, Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han one originally imported is not factually correct. The entire quantity of electrolytic tin plate which had been received by them on high seas sale basis, or advance licence basis, under the proper Bill of Entry and subsidiary certificates in lieu of GP 1's under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules and that therefore, there is no case made out against them. However, the authorities were not satisfied with the explanation and hence they confirmed these and also imposed penalty of Rs. 40,000/- in Appeal No. E/1353/96-NB and Rs. 50,000/- in Appeal No. E/1354/96-NB. 5. We have heard both the sides in this matter. 6. The learned Advocate strongly relied on the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the similar case as in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem there is no co-relation between the goods and that they had taken the Modvat credit in terms of the Bill of Entry before the goods had been received and therefore, the non-grant of Modvat credit on the ground is fully justified including imposition of penalty. 8. On a careful consideration of the matter, we notice that the Tribunal has already adjudicated on a similar issue and has held that so long as the inputs and the final product could be co-related the benefit of Modvat cannot be denied for procedural violation of Rule 57F(2). It has also held that penalty can also be imposed for non-compliance of provision of the said rules. In the present case, it is asserted by the appellants that it was not possible for them to have tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
