9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit on inputs. The appellant had taken modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,28,806/- on the strength of bill of entry No. B/E/BTCC/TYP/2000-T.12 dated 22-8-1998 on 6-10-1998, which according to the Revenue, was inadmissible because, the bill of entry was neither in the name of the appellant nor endorsed to the appellant. The adjudicating authority on the basis of the material on record held that, since the bill of entry was neither addressed to the manufacturer nor to their head office and was not even endorsed to their manufacturing unit, there was no reason to hold the credit to be admissible. As regards the demand of Rs. 1335/-, it was found that, since the input was not declared against the statutory requirement of rule 57G, the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffice was given. The provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 only require that, the inputs should be received under the cover of an enumerated document, which in the present case was a duplicate copy of a bill of entry generated on electronic data exchange system installed in the Customs Commissionerate, which is a document specified in clause (k) of sub-rule (3) of rule 57G of the said Rules. Since the modvat credit was availed by the appellant under the said modvatable document, giving of address of the branch office in the importer s details was not relevant for deciding the modvatability of the document. In this context, we may refer to the decision of the Tribunal in Deputy General Manager (Taxation) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EL) to take modvat credit when, admittedly, the goods were received at the factory of BHEL at Bhopal under the cover of triplicate copies of these bills of entry. There was no need for the department to superimpose a requirement of the names of the units of the importer who was the manufacturer (BHEL), being shown in the bills of entry. 8.3 There is one more important angle to this issue. Modvat/Cenvat credit can be taken by a manufacturer. The word manufacturer is to be construed as per the definition of manufacture and would include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production of manufacturing excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture of his own account. It is obvious that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant in respect of three bills of entry on the ground that though the name of the appellant who was a manufacturer and the assessee was mentioned as the importer, the name of its unit was not mentioned. Though the manufacturer s unit or units may require to be assessed separately having regard to the scheme of the levy and collection of excise duty, the manufacturing units themselves are not manufacturers or assessees . The manufacturer and assessee would necessarily be a person and not a mere unit. Therefore, the requirement of claiming modvat credit under the document falling in the category c of sub-rule (3) of Rule 57G was duly satisfied in the present case and modvat credit could not have been denied to the appellant due to non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
