9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem during the period from April '94 to August '94 as detailed in Para 1 above should not be disallowed to them and why the amount equivalent to the Modvat credit wrongly availed by them should not be recovered from them under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944; and (ii) why a penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Appellant submitted detailed reply to the said notice. Though an opportunity to submit their case in person was offered, they requested the Commissioner to pass final orders on the basis of their written objections. Thereupon, the final order No.11/97, dated 30-4-1997 was issued. As per that order, the adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,69,87,349.l4 being the credit irregularly availed of during the period from April to August 1994 under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority further imposed penalty of Rs. 1 Crore on the appellant company under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules. Aggrieved by this decision, this appeal has been preferred. 3. We heard learned Counsel repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verify the receipt of the inputs. 7. This argument is met by the learned Counsel representing the appellant by stating that their factory at Yeshwantpur was closed because they stopped manufacture of Montana cars in 1993 itself. For manufacture of Rover cars, they were having new factory at the industrial area in Hosur Road. The old Central Excise licence obtained from the authorities was transferred to the new location, inputs which they imported were only for their sole existing factory at Hosur Road. 8. So the ground that the documents namely Bills of Entry were addressed to the company and the goods were consigned to the factory cannot be a reason for denial of Modvat credit. Reference in this regard was made to the decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 948 (T). In the light of this decision and on the facts of this case, there is no substance in point (vi) raised in the show cause notice and dealt with by the Commissioner. 9. Turning to point No. (i), learned Counsel brought to the notice of the Commissioner, CEGAT Final Order Nos. C/741 to 769/96-B2, dated 10-9-1996 rendered by the Larger Bench of CEGAT in appellant's ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the higher authority. Even if the sub-ordinate authority is having different view on the issue decided, he is bound to follow the judicial discipline unless and until, the decision rendered by CEGAT is distinguished on facts by him or stayed or reversed by higher authority in accordance with law. The decisions of the Tribunal noted above are governing the issue. We are at pains to see that such an Officer of high rank in the department resorted to a course which is violative of judicial discipline. 11. The principles stated by CEGAT in its decision referred to earlier has now been followed by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue by issue of Circular No. 374/98-CX, dated 21-1-1998 . The relevant portion of the circular reads as follows :- " Matter has been examined in the Board. I am directed to say that the goods have been assessed to duty by the Customs Authorities as per the rate applicable to the complete car when imported in CKD/SKD condition. The activity of assembly of components in CKD/SKD condition into a car amounts to manufacture as per the Note 6 of Section XVII of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Hence, the CKD/SKD car packs are inputs f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t stated that any such verification of any documents maintained in his department was carried out by him, to see whether Modvat credit was claimed by the appellant correctly. 16. Learned Counsel representing the appellant produced before us the originals of triplicate Bills of Entry. They bear Nos. 012772 dated 25-4-1994, 014146 dated 5-5-1994, 014029 dated 4-5-1994 and 012259 dated 20-4-1994. These Bills of Entry show that they were defaced by the Superintendent of Central Excise after affixing the rubber seal and dated signature. The seal shows that "credit taken under Rule 57A". Photocopies of 14 more Bills of Entry are also placed before us. They also bear same endorsement as in the case of others mentioned above. According to ld. Counsel, the original of these photocopies are with the customs department alongwith refund applications filed by the appellant. 17. Learned Counsel further produced documents showing that 30 Bills of Entry were produced before the concerned Excise Officer and received back by them after defacement on 16-11-1995. Four original triplicate Bills of Entry referred to earlier as well as 14 photo copies are out of the 30 mentioned in this list. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
