9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL) for the manufacture of which they use dyes and fixtures supplied by MUL; that MUL imported certain dyes and fixtures under a Bill of Entry dated 24-3-2000 and supplied part of the consignment to them after getting the Bill of Entry duly endorsed by the Customs Authorities; that the Revenue has disallowed the Cenvat credit on the ground that the consignment cannot be split into different parts and the entire consignment should have been endorsed to the appellants. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that endorsed Bill of Entry is a proper document for availing the Cenvat credit in terms of Board's Circular No. 179/13/96-CX. 8, dated 29-2-1996 which allows a manufacturer other than the importer of goods t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts a manufacturing unit to avail of the credit of the duty paid by importer only on fulfilment of certain conditions; that one of the conditions is that a declaration is made by the importer on the reverse of the triplicate copy of Bill of Entry to the effect that the consignment is being delivered to the unit; that no such endorsement has been made on the reverse of the triplicate copy of Bill of Entry; that the said circular nowhere provides that the consignment can be split into various parts and Bill of Entry can be endorsed to different manufacturing units; that on the other hand, Paragraph 7 of the said circular, clearly provides that in case of split consignments, the inputs can be cleared on the payment of duty as envisaged under Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whose name is mentioned in the said declaration. We find that two declarations were made by MUL in respect of consignments imported by them under the cover of Bill of Entry No. 103050 in the name of M/s. VEE GEE Enterprises and M/s. Urastan Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. In the said declaration, besides mentioning the Bill of Entry No. and Date, M/s. MUL had mentioned the name of the consignees, the range number, the Central Excise Division No. and the place. We, therefore, observe that the goods, which were to be diverted to both the consignees, were also mentioned separately in the declarations. A perusal of the show cause notice and the Adjudication Order and impugned Order reveals that the Revenue has not disputed the payment of duty by M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. MUL and has not come directly from docks and as such the circular, in question, does not apply. First of all, we observe that no such case was ever made by the Department in the show cause notice issued to them. The Adjudicating Authority has disallowed the credit as the appellants had failed to produce any purchase document/lease document and for want of any provisions for transfer of part consignment from docks in terms of circular dated 29-2-1996. The Commissioner (Appeals) also has not dealt with the said issue in the impugned Order. Secondly, in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (Final Order No. A/628-29/3-NB(C), dated 27-10-2003 [2004 (165) E.L.T. 226 (T)]), the Tribunal has held that "the mere delay in sending the goods directly to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
