9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GM(F) for the Appellant (s) Shri A.Roy, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K.Choudhary This is the second round of appeal before this forum. In the earlier occasion this Bench vide Order No.A-38/Kol/06 dated 16.01.2006 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant M/s I.O.C.L is engaged in the manufacture of various petroleum products at its Barauni Refinery classifiable under Chapter-27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. With effect from 01.03.1994 the benefits of Modvat Credit were extended to petroleum products classifiable under Chapter-27. The manufacturer were also allowed to avail credit of duty on inputs lying in stock on or after 01.03.1994 and also on inputs contained in the final products cleared on or after 01.03.1994. The appellant filed its declarations on 15.03.1994 which was acknowledged by the Department vide letter dated 21.03.1994. They also declared the stock of inputs lying in the refinery as on 01.03.1994 by its letter dated 30.03.1994. Show Cause Notice dated 21.09.1994 was issued to disallow Modvat Credit of ₹ 1,21,93,989/- availed during the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said stock of inputs and the amount so computed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Patna shall only be admissible for Modvat credit under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In view of above facts circumstances, the matter has been considered by the undersigned pleased to allow the Modvat credit of ₹ 96,61,439/- (Rupees ninety six lakhs sixty one thousand four hundred thirty nine only) duly computed as per computation sheet enclosed. The balance of duty amount of ₹ 25,32,550/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs thirty two thousand five hundred fifty only) is to be paid by M/s. IOC, Ltd. Barauni. Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division, Patna The appellant assessee was in appeal before this bench. The Tribunal vide Order No. A-38/Kol/06 dated 16.01.2006 allowed the appeal of the appellant and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with the following remarks, which is reproduced below: After clarifying the law that the Credit is available in respect of the goods lying in stock as on 1.3.94, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for examining the appellant company s entitlement to Credit in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go into the issue which was already decided in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal and also in view of the order of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner dated 13.03.2003, the matter is now limited to ₹ 25,32,550/- which is for the period 01.03.1994 to 20.03.1994. Further after reversal/payment of ₹ 11,98,061/- the dispute is now limited to ₹ 13,34,489/-. He relied upon various decisions. 3. Ld. D.R. contended that the matter was remanded by the Tribunal on the earlier occasion and in remand proceedings the appellants failed to show the duty paid documents and hence, the credit has been rightly denied. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. We find that in the earlier proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order dated 13.03.2003 allowed the credit of ₹ 96,61,439/- in pursuance to the order dated 06.02.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Further, appellants have already deposited the amount of ₹ 11,98,061/-. On perusal of records we find that the appellant s Calcutta office i.e. IOC Limited, 1, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Calcutta clears all imported inputs for their refinery situate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for steel sheets. But if we go by the spirit of such provision I feel that I.O.C. Ltd., should avail such facility for the reasons that- (a) Admittedly, I. O. C. Ltd., is a public sector undertaking. (b) It s Head Office is at Calcutta which catters the need of its refineries situated at different locations like, Barauni, Haldia, Guwahati and Digboi. (c) It imports the inputs, Collectively, and supplies it to it s various locations. (d) In such circumstance, it will be not possible for them to provide original documents of Bill of Entry to each individual unit because a part of it only is supplied to them. (e) In such situation, at best, a certificate indicating the specified qty. of input can be issued evidencing the payment of countervailing duty. (f) Above all, such certificates were issued not in favour of their units, neither, these were for their own units. 5.4. I also find the learned Tribunal in the case of Agarwal Metal Works -Vs.- CCE, New Delhi held that, admittedly Hindustan Copper Ltd. And Hindustan Zinc Ltd. are public sector undertakings and the credit taken on the strength of certificate issued by them is sustainable in law . In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
