9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit for endorsement made on documents addressed to head office. The appellants submission that the unit endorsing documents may be considered as Head office has no basis. Head Office registered offices are declared places as such and there is no point to consider a place as Head Office or Registered Office. The appellants case is not covered by the case law cited by them. The appellants have failed to give any corroborative evidence to show the actual use of the items; movement of goods enroute from another factory and the proof that the goods were in original packing accompanying documents and as to how the documents were endorsed by the midway factory without the goods even entering the unit as submitted by them. I uphold the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 29-2-99 stating that by this circular, the Board clarified in para 3 3. It has been decided that credit should not be denied where the Bill of Entry is in the name of the Registered Office/Head Office provided that (a) the entire consignment covered by the said Bill of Entry is received in the factory in original packed conditions (b) triplicate copy of Bill of Entry/duplicate copy of Bill of Entry generated on EDI system is endorsed by the Registered Office/Head Office to the effect that consignment covered by the Bill of Entry are delivered to the manufacturing unit for availing credit . Ld. Counsel submits that the above circular of the Board was modified partly by Circular No. 211/45/96-CX., dt. 14-5-96. Ld. Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one unit or the other. Ld. Counsel also, therefore, submitted that in view of the above clarifications given by various circulars issued by the Board, the appeal may be allowed. 6. Shri D.N. Choudhary, ld. DR submits that the case pertains to the year 1996. He submits that in the Modvat credit scheme, there was no provision for endorsing gate passes or Bills of Entry after 1-4-94. He submits that Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. [2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tri. - LB)] held that endorsed invoices after 1-4-94 are not valid documents for claiming Modvat credit. Ld. DR submitted that instructions should follow the Rules and that instructions cannot take precedence over the Rules. He submits that since in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
