Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Prince Metal Works vs Cce on 31 December, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(70)ECR205(TRI.-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Appeal taken up for disposal, after waiving pre-deposit.
2. Modvat credit has been denied to the appellant on the grounds that it took credit on a consignment of goods, the gate pass for which has been endorsed twice and that it was a part consignment consisting out of 6 consignments of coil.
3. Advocate for the appellant points out that this Tribunal in its decision SBS Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE&C has held that, since the Board permitted two endorsements, there is no reason why the credit should be denied only because the gate pass have a longer number of endorsements. He relies on the decision of this Tribunal in Rathi Steels and Swastik Iron and Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh 1996 (14) RLT 444 to say that credit cannot be denied only because part quantity was considered for Modvat purpose. He further points out that even in the SBS Organics case there is nothing in its ratio to say that the entire quantity alone was to be considered. He however says that a decision of the Tribunal (single member) in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Sree Gopalakrishna Polly Industries 1996 (14) RLT 489 holds a contrary view.
4. The departmental representative relies upon this last decision.
5. It appears that the decision in CCE, Coimbatore v. Sree Gopalakrishna Polly Industries holds a view contrary to that in SBS Organics. However, I do not consider it necessary to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for the reason that there are numerous decisions (Vikrain v. CCE and other) to say that where it can be shown that inputs, on which duty was paid were actually received and utilised for manufacture of finished products credit cannot be denied on procedural grounds. Advocate for the appellants says that he will be in a position to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner to this effect.
6. In view of this, appeal allowed. The matter is sent back to the Assistant Commissioner, who shall, after considering the submissions made by the appellant within three months of the receipt of this order decide whether the duty paid inputs have in fact been received by the appellant and utilised in the manufacture of finished goods. If the answer is in the affirmative, the credit shall be allowed and if not, appropriate orders should be passed according to law.
(Dictated in Court.)