9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed Modvat credit of Rs. 23,367/- on the basis of a document (triplicate Bill of Entry) addressed to the appellant at 31, Navketan Industrial Estate, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400 093, whereas appellant s premises is registered at Sakinaka, Mumbai-400 072 in the registration No. MF 2903080 737. It is not a proper document under Rule 57C of Central Excise Rules. Show cause notice-cum-demand notice was issued on 13-10-1995 to the appellant, answerable to Assistant Collector to show-cause, why it should not be recovered under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A (1) and why penalty should not be imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. Appellant replied it on 27-11-1995. Personal Hearing was held on 28-2-1996. Appellant was heard thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... My finding thereon is in the affirmative. 4. Perused the show-cause notice, reply, documents produced, orders of lower authorities, appeal memorandum. As contended by appellant, the Bill of Entry on reverse page, contains a declaration showing the intention to avail Modvat credit on the imported inputs stainless steel weaving wire - AISI 304 L Soft Annealed, giving the address of factory at III/Ist Floor, Shivai Industrial Estate, Sakinaka, Bombay-400072 with registration No. MF 2903080737, dated 17-6-1994, and also the address of the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise, Range VIII Division III, Mumbai II, and on left hand side in a proforma also, there is another declaration giving the details of import, such as address of im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal memorandum showing the clear mind of the appellant, as per reply to show cause notice with the consistent stand throughout. Rule 57A declaration is not produced in the file. The variation of signature is admitted, appellant explains that Rule 57A declaration is signed by some other officer on behalf of Assistant Collector. According to JDR it is an appraiser s. So, in view of this position, de novo adjudication is not necessary. As contended by appellant, receipt of inputs by appellant under Bill of Entry, prescribed Modvat document, is not in dispute. The variation regarding the address of the appellant in reply to show-cause notice, and Bill of Entry and on its reverse is not sufficient to deny the credit, in view of clear declara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
