9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing through the invoice it was observed that the supplier has sold the material to the appellant under description of 'cable' (copper wire) GR-8647 and under chapter heading 74.08 From the said description it is clear that even though the appellant treated the said copper material as waste therefore I uphold the denial of MODVAT credit. Even if GP-1 was not endorsed in favour of the appellant but if input covered under the said GP-1 was received in the factory, account for the same in records, purchases were booked in the name of the appellant and payment their against was made by the appellant these are satisfactory evidences to established that the inputs covered under the said unendorsed GP-I were received by the appellant and used in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V.K. Shastri, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PKS/500/BEL/2010 dated 19.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai III, wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The issue involved in the present case is that the MODVAT credit of the appellant was disallowed by the lower authority on the following grounds:- (A) Credit amount of ₹ 56,874.87 was denied on the ground that credit was taken before the issue of duty paying documents. (B) Credit amount of ₹ 11,880/- was taken on the basis of certified photocopy of subsidiary GP-1s. (C) Credit amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has wrongly contended that credit taken prior to issue of subsidiary GP-1. More over the certificate in lieu of GP-1 are always issued subsequent to the date of issue GP-1, therefore the appellant has correctly availed credit in view of the above fact appearing on record. (B) As regard credit amount of ₹ 11,880/-, he submits that the same was availed on the strength of photocopy which was certified by Central Excise Officer. Therefore the same is admissible, in this support, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Bombay Goods Transport Association Vs. Union of India, 1995 (77) ELT 521 (Bom.), Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad 1996 (87) ELT 137 (T). (C) As regard credit amount of ₹ 31,087.30 taken as dee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much received by the appellant and the same was used in the manufacture of final product. The lapse of non-making in RG 23A is due to inadvertently. The objective of RG 23 A Part-I is only to show the receipt of input in the factory. There is no dispute in the fact that the input was received in the appellant's factory and the same was used. (F) As regard the credit amount of ₹ 13,823/- which was taken in respect of material entered in RG 23A part-I at a date prior to the date of issue of GP-1, he submits that the MODVAT credit was taken only after receipt of duty paying document. He relied on the Board letter No. B-21/4/87-TRU dated 15.04.1987 wherein it was clarified that the inputs received without duty paying documents and used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of said subsidiary GP-1. I find that the subsidiary GP-1 were issued on 23.02.1992, 03.03.1992 and 03.04.1992 and the credit there against was taken in RG 23A Part-II on 14.03.1992, 18.03.1992 and 18.04.1992 respectively. Therefore the allegation of the Revenue is apparently wrong on the face of the record. Therefore the credit amount of ₹ 56,874.87/- is allowed. (ii) As regard the credit amount of ₹ 11,880/- availed by the appellant on the basis of certified photocopy of subsidiary GP-1s. I find that in terms of the judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of Bombay Goods Transport Association (supra) and Eveready Industries India Ltd. (supra) credit on certified photocopy of subsidiary GP-1s is admissible. Foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he inputs covered under the said unendorsed GP-I were received by the appellant and used in the manufacture. However from the proceeding it is observed that such examination were not carried out, therefore I am of the opinion that for the purpose of this verification, the matter should be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide a fresh the eligibility of MODVAT credit of ₹ 2,54,805.77. After satisfying the criteria as mentioned above I therefore remand the matter to this extent. (v)As regard the MODVAT credit amounting to ₹ 36.396.03 availed by the appellant in RG 23A part-II but no accounting of the material have been made in RG 23A Part-I, I am of the view that this is only technical lapse. The lower author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
