Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Nebula Chemicals vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 5 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(176)ELT202(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER K.D. Mankar, Member (T)
1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The issue relates to modvat credit of Rs. 3,50,583.16. The facts are that due to space constraints the appellants were storing the imported goods to be used as inputs in an outside godown called Anjali Godown and availed appropriate modvat credit on the strength of subsidiary certificate issued by the Range Superintendent, as and when the part quantity of such imported goods was brought into their registered factory premises for eventual utilisation for manufacture of final dutiable goods. This practice was in vogue till 31.3.1994. On withdrawal of the subsidiary certificate system vide notification No. 16/94 C.E. (NT), the appellant started bringing the imported goods stored outside, on their own stock transfer challans i.e. depot challan cum-bills, mentioning therein the relevant details as required under notification 15/94 CE(NT) and availed the modvat credit to the extent of duty shown on such challans. This was objected and show cause notice was issued stating that the depot challan cum bill issued for the stock transfer of the imported inputs were not the appropriate duty paying documents and the godown was not registered with the Central Excise department The orders of the adjudicating authority and that of the Commissioner(Appeals) have gone against the appellants. Hence the instant appeal to the Tribunal.
2. It is an undisputed fact that Anjali godown belongs to the importers. It is a fact that the imported input was imported by the appellant themselves. The entire stock was transferred to the Anjali godown and was the property of the importers. The non availability of adequate space in the factory godown being the only constraint the entire consignment imported on the bill of entry was stocked in the godown, and subsequently there form it was transferred to the factory on piecemeal basis through stock transfer challans. The appellants have placed reliance on the trade notice No. 59/15/94 dated 3.8.1994 wherein at serial No. 1 thereof it has been clarified that the importer's depot does not require a registration if he himself is the manufacturer. Therefore in terms of the said clarification it is pleaded that the depot of the importer was not required to be registered, since the goods stored therein were consumed by the importer manufacturer and there was no trading involved from the said godown.
3. I have considered the above mentioned submissions and heard the Ld. DR.
4. The dispute relates to acceptability of stock transfer challans issued from the importer's godown. The entire quantity imported against the bill of entry has been received in the godown instead of the factory. This duty-paying document authorises the manufacturer to claim full modvat in respect of duty paid thereon. Due to space constraint the entire cargo could not be shifted to the factory, and has to be kept in an intermediate storage space i.e. Anjali godown. But this intermediate storage cannot effect the factual position, that the entire quantity was meant and was in fact used as input in the manufacture of the final goods in the factory of the appellants. While technically the stock transfer challans cannot be considered as dealer's invoice or invoice issued from the importers' godown, these documents are merely to be considered as the issue slips out of the entire stock of inputs received under the bill of entry. The bill of entry is the duty paying document in this case and therefore credit is permissible on the strength of this bill of entry, intermediate issue slips covering piecemeal transportation of godown to the factory, notwithstanding.
5. The Trade notice also supports this position. As long as the goods received under the stock transfer challans can be correlated to the goods figuring in the bill of entry, there cannot be any question of denial of modvat credit since the credit was generated, not on the challan, but was based on the primary document viz, bill of entry, which is undoubtedly a duty paying document.
6. On the basis of this discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
(Operative part pronounced in Court)