Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Trichem Lab. (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 13 April, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV Appeal No. E/1058/08, E/999/09 & E/1625/10 (Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. SRK/557/BEL/2008 dated 5.9.2008; YDB/16/BEL/2009 dated 30.7.2009 & PKS/138/BEL/2010 dated 16.6.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II). For approval and signature: Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s Trichem Lab. (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Respondent Appearance: Shri V.S. Sejpal, Advocate for Appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 22.03.2016 Date of Decision: 13.04.2016 ORDER NO. Per: Raju
The appellant, M/s Trichem Lab. (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., are manufacturers of Organic Chemicals and Diagnostic or Laboratory Reagents on job-work basis for M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceutical Ltd. and M/s Thermo Electron LLS India Pvt. Ltd. (i.e. Principal manufacturers). The said principal manufacturers were importing the inputs and supplying the same directly from Port to the appellants. Behind the Bill of Entry, they were making the specific declarations. One such declaration specifically reads as follows: -
We hereby authorize you to avail CENVAT Credit in respect of the goods covered in this Bill of Entry at your factory at the above address. These goods are directly delivered to your factory from docks for processing. The credit of duty on basis of such Bill of Entry was denied to the appellant on the grounds that the Bill of Entry was in the name of Principal Manufacturer and not in the name of the appellants. Appeal No. E/1058/08 and E/1625/10 are in respect of such denial of credit on the basis of such documents. In one case the appellant cleared the import as such to the principal manufacturer and reversed the CENVAT Credit. In respect of this amount, no demand was raised initially, however, later a demand seeking reversal of such credit was raised and confirmed by the lower authorities. The said order is challenged vide Appeal No. E/999/09. The appellants are in appeal against all the demands.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that Circular No. 179/13/96-CX dated 29.2.1996 permitted availment of credit on the strength of endorsed Bill of Entry. The said Circular read as follows: -
A declaration by the manufacturer/importer can be made on the reverse of triplicate copy of Bill of Entry/duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry generated on EDI system by the manufacturer/importer that consignments are being delivered to the unit (name of the unit) for availing credit and endorsed by the Proper Officer of Customs for enabling the manufacturing unit to avail credit. The requirement of endorsement by Proper Officer of Customs was done away by the Public Notice No. 16/2006 dated 22.3.2006. The said Public Notice in para 4 clarified as under: -
Rule 8 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, specify the documents on the strength of which credit may be availed. Endorsement of Bill of Entry for the availment of MODVAT Credit, which was specifically mentioned earlier, has not been provided for, under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, the practice of endorsement of Bill of Entry by Customs Officer is hereby dispensed with. He argued that the appellants were declaring at the Customs Port itself that the goods are intended to send to another person for job work. He argued that at the material time the procedure do not require endorsement of Customs Officer for this purpose. The appellant also relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Marmagoa Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2005 (192) ELT 82 (Bom), wherein it has been held that it is not necessary that the document on which credit is to be taken should be in the name of person taking the credit. He particularly highlighted para 10 and 11 of the said judgment. He further informed that the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 2008 (229) ELT 481 (SC).
4. Learned AR relied on the impugned order.
5. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the issue regarding receipt and use of goods by the appellants has not been disputed. The only dispute in this case relates to validity of Bill of Entry with the endorsement on a separate sheet of paper made in pursuance with the Circular No. 179/13/96-CX dated 29.2.1996 for the purpose of availing credit. I find that the said Circular initially permitted availment of credit on the basis of Bill of Entry with endorsement by the proper officer of Customs. Later on, on 22.3.006 the requirement of endorsement of Proper Officer of Customs was done away. Therefore, in terms of Circular the importers endorsement was sufficient. In view of the above, the endorsements done by the importer become sufficient for the purpose of availement of credit on the strength of Bill of Entry.
6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
(Pronounced in Court on 13.04.2016) (Raju) Member (Technical) Sinha 4 Appeal No. E/ 1058/08, E/999/09 & E/1625/10