2012 (11) TMI 1021

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant is that the endorsed Bill of Entry is not one of the documents prescribed under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It is not even the case of the Department that the capital goods in question were not received in the appellant’s factory and not used for manufacture of excisable products. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the CENVAT credit of the CVD paid on the capital goods cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground alleged in the show-cause notice - Decided in favour of assessee.
Shri P.G. Chacko, J. Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Nigam, Additional Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER On a perusal of the records and hearing both sides, I find that the short question t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the basis of this document. It is also seen that this document was not produced before the lower authorities. 3. The learned counsel has argued that, though there is no specific provision for endorsement on a Bill of Entry, endorsed Bills of Entry have been accepted by this Tribunal, High Courts etc. as valid documents for availment of CENVAT credit. In this connection, reliance is placed on Marmagoa Steel Ltd. v. UOI [2005 (192) E.L.T. 82 (Bom.)]. Per contra, the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) has relied on Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd. v. Commissioner [2011 (263) E.L.T. A139 (Bom.)]. 4. In the case of Marmagoa Steel Ltd. (supra), CENVAT credit of CVD paid on certain inputs imported by one M/s. Essar Gujarat Ltd. was claimed by M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Bills of Entry, the party was held to be eligible for CENVAT credit. In the instant case, it is not even the case of the Department that the capital goods in question were not received in the appellant's factory and not used for manufacture of excisable products. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the CENVAT credit of the CVD paid on the capital goods cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground alleged in the show-cause notice. In the case of Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd. (supra) cited by the learned Additional Commissioner (AR), the Hon'ble High Court was remanding a case to this Tribunal for taking fresh decision on a similar issue in the light of the Court's earlier judgment in Marmagoa Steels Ltd. v. UOI. The decision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X