Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
M/S. Nicco Corpn. Ltd. vs Cce, Calcutta-Iii on 16 April, 2001
ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1. The appellants were issued a show cause notice proposing to deny the modvat credit of duty based on several allegations. Most of the allegations were dropped by the Asstt.Commissioner. However credit of duty of Rs.1,67,682.90 was confirmed by him by denying the modvat credit on the ground that the advice cum delivery challans issued by M/s. Tisco were endorsed thrice. The said order of the Asstt.Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner(Appeals). Hence the present appeal.
2. I have heard Shri N.K.Chatterjee, GM(Commercial) of the appellant and Shri M.N.Basu, ld.adv. appearing for the appellant. It has been argued that the advice/delivery challans were issued originally by the stockyards of M/s.TISCO and thereafter they were endorsed two times. All these documents were issued prior to 1.4.94 when the invoice system had not been introduced. As such submits the ld.adv. that the duty paying documents, even though endorsed, should be considered as paper documents for the purposes of modvat credit in terms of notfin.no.16/94-CE(NT) dt.30.3.94 which permitted the endorsed documents as valid documents if the same were issued along with the goods on or before 30.6.94. In the present case the goods were received in the factory of the appellant during that the denial of credit based upon the technicalities is not justifiable.
3. Shri A.K.chattopandhyay, ld.JDR appears for the Revenue and submits that endorsement of advice/delivery challans issued by stockyards of M/s. TISCO is not permissible as these challans cannot be equated with the gate passes as held by the Tribunal in the case of S.S.Enterprises v. CCE, Banglore-1999(105)ELT 99(T).
4. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made from both the sides. There is no evidence that the goods covered by the delivery challans issued by stockyards of M/s. TISCO have not been received by the appellant prior to 30.6.94. These challans were issued prior to 1.4.94, when the invoice system was not introduced. There is ample case law to the effect that endorsements of such delivery challans cannot take away the valuable right of modvat credit of the assessees on the ground of endorsement of the same. I also take note of the fact that there is no allegation by the Revenue that the parties who endorsed the gate passes have taken the modvat credit in between based upon the same set of document or the assessee had not received the goods in original packing in their factory. In the absence of these allegations, it is difficult to deny the benefit of the modvat credit to the appellants. Accordingly I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.As the appeal has been allowed stay petition also gets disposed of.
Dictated in the court.