9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d inputs for use as raw material in their factory. After clearance of the imported inputs from the Customs they received the goods under the cover of the original of the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry No. 3171 dated 9-12-1994 and took the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,13,590.75 in their RG 23A Part II. On account of major renovation and repair of their office premises some of the documents including the original of the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry was mis-placed. They applied and got re-constructed copy of the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry from the Custom Department for producing before the Range Officer for the purpose of defacing the same. A show cause notice dated 20-10-1995 was issued to them for disallowing Modv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld by the Commissioner (Appeals) while confirming the Order-in-Original. The learned Advocate relied upon the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Steel Moulds Another v. C.C.E. - 1996 (62) ECR 322 (Tribunal) in which the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the department for re-consideration of eligibility to Modvat credit on the basis of certified xeroxed copy of triplicate copy of Bill of Entry. The learned Advocate emphasised the fact that Modvat credit was availed of by them on the strength of original copy of triplicate Bill of Entry and only after availing the credit the Bill of Entry was mis-placed and they had taken the re-constructed copy from the Customs for the purpose of getting it defaced from the Range Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that credit cannot be taken on the basis of photocopy of gate passes after the amendment of Rule 57G(4) with effect from 1-1-1990 providing for taking of Credit on the basis of original copy. The reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Nestle India Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 443 (Tribunal), in which it was held that original copy of invoice is not a valid document for taking Modvat credit. 4. In reply, the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submitted that the department has nowhere controverted their plea that the credit was taken on the basis of original copy of triplicate Bill of Entry, and therefore, the reasonable conclusion would be that the department was convinced by the appellants reply as held by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs were received inside the factory accompanied with the original copy of the triplicate copy of Bill of Entry, and the credit was taken by them only on the strength of such copy. The learned Advocate had shown to us that such a contention was made by them in their reply dated 24-11-1995 to the show cause notice. Neither the Additional Commissioner nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to this submission of the appellants in either of the impugned order. Once it is not disputed by the department that the inputs have been duly received by the appellants and they have been used in the manufacture of declared finished product and the fact that receipt of the goods under original copy of the triplicate copy of Bill of Entry not contro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
