Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Radhu Products (P) Ltd. vs Cce on 30 January, 2006
ORDER M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 12.9.2003 wherein the Order-in-Original dated 15.5.2000 was upheld and Modvat Credit was denied to the appellants on capital goods and inputs for various reasons.
2. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have documentary evidence to prove that the inputs were received and consumed in the factory and the capital goods were also received and installed in the factory and all duty paying documents were in the name of their head office since the factory was at the project stage. He submits that the appellate authority has not considered any of the submissions made by them nor has he considered the case law cited before him before dismissing the appeal of the appellants.
3. Learned D.R. reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. At the same time he fairly submits that the appellate authority has not considered the detailed submissions made by the appellants.
4. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find that the show cause notice has been issued for denial of Modvat Credit So the appellants basically on three charges i.e. declaration for capital goods and inputs were filed subsequently, duty paying documents were not in the name of the manufacturer, and the credit which was sought to be availed do not fall under the definition of capital goods and inputs. The documents produced by the learned Consultant in the form of declaration and the invoices and gate-passes show that these were addressed to the appellants" head office at New Delhi. It : is settled law that any duty paying documents addressed in the name of head office of the appellant is a valid document for the credit available at the factory, subject to endorsement made on such invoices by the head office of the appellants. I also find that there is no dispute regarding the receipt and consumption of the inputs, receipt and installation of the capital goods in the factory of the appellants.
5. Rule 57G and Rule 57T were amended by notification No. 7/99-CE(NT) and the said amendment authorized the Asst. Commissioner/Dy Commissioner to condone the procedural irregularities and to allow credit to the assessee. Subsequent to the issue of said notification C.B.E.C. vide its Circular No. 441/99 dated 15.2.99 had also clarified that the pending issues in respect of procedural infractions should be decided by following the circular. I find that in this case the Order-in-Original was issued on 17.5.2000 and the order-in-appeal was issued on 12.9.2003. The said amendment to Rule 57G and 57T was in existence during the adjudication as well as appellate proceedings. I also find that the order-in-original has not considered the said amendment which were brought in February, 1999.
6. Since the Board's Circular No. 441 gives a clear direction to the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner and the Dy. Commissioner in respect of procedural violation, to my mind the order-in-appeal dated 12.9.2003 is liable to set aside. Accordingly, I set aside the order-in-appeal dated 12.9.2003 and remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of amendment to Rule 57G and 57T vide notification No. 7/99 and the Board's Circular No. 441/99. The appellants are at liberty to produce all the documents which they would like to before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority will follow the principle of natural justice before deciding the issue. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)