Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Gold Line Bath Fixtures (P) Ltd. vs Cce on 17 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(121)ECC307, 2007ECR307(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER
R.K. Abichandani, J. (President)
1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 30.11.2004, upholding the order-in-original by which it was held that, modvat credit of Rs. 1,37,741/- on capital goods was not admissible to the appellant in the absence of a proper duty paying document, namely bill of entry, and imposing a reduced penalty of Rs. 20,000/-.
2. The appellant were engaged in the manufacture of taps and cocks and on scrutiny of the RT-12 returns, it appeared to the Revenue that modvat credit was taken on the capital goods. The appellant was asked to submit all modvatable invoices pertaining to the RT-12 returns, which were not submitted and therefore, show cause notice was issued on 24.9.1997 for recovery of the wrongly availed modvat credit and imposition of penalty.
3. During the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority, the authorized representative of the department who appeared on 22.2.2000 submitted photo copies of two letters both dated 29.9.1997 along with photo copy of bill of entry 926488 dated 21.10.1995 for showing that the credit was taken under the modvatable document. The adjudicating authority, however, observing that the bill of entry No. 926408 dated 20.10.1995 submitted by the party was not signed by the Customs officer and had not certified the place of issue held that, it was not a proper modvatable document and therefore, modvat credit was taken in contravention of the provisions of Rule 52T(6) of the said Rules.
4. The Appellate Commissioner on perusal of the range file and documents held that there was no signature or stamp of the Customs Officer and no evidence to show that duty was paid. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal, while reducing the penalty.
5. The original record has been called and submitted for perusal to this Court by the Revenue. It appears from the original file that the appellant wrote a letter on September 29, 1997 to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Mathura in which it was written as under:
To The Superintendent, Central Excise, Mathura.
Dear Sir, We are forwarding herewith the copy of Bill of Entry, in original, bearing No. BE No. 926408, dated 28.10.95 with the request that after the defacement, the same may kindly be returned-back to us.
Kindly acknowledge receipt. Thanking you in anticipation. Yours faithfully, For GOLD LINE BATH FIXTGURES PVT. LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR:
Encl: As above It also appears from the record that importer's EDI duplicate was submitted with the forwarding letter. From the correspondence which is on record it appears that the Superintendent (Technical), Central Excise, Aligarh had written to the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Mathura to submit the original duty paying document to the Aligarh office. Even in the communication dated 29.9.1997, the appellant had informed the Assistant Commissioner, Aligarh that the original duty paying documents in respect of the credit in question availed on capital goods were submitted to the Mathura Range Office by their letter dated 29.9.1997. The importer's copy of Bill of Entry, which is on record shows that, it was generated by Indian Customs EDI System and there is no dispute over this fact after both the sides had perused the original record file in the Court. It also appears from the record that by the letter C.No. 74-CE/APPL/ALLD/GZB/02/2776 dated 24.9.2004, the Commissioner (Appeals) had called upon the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Mathura to produce the original duplicate copy of the said Bill of Entry. In the said communication it was stated as under:
...On perusal of documents it was found that Bill of Entry in original bearing BE No. 926408 dated 28.10.1995 was submitted to the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Mathura vide forwarding letter dated 29.9.1997 and duly acknowledged by the range on 30.9.1997 on the above forwarding letter. This BE related to S.C. No. 641/Gold Line/MTR/96/1003 dated 24.9.97 and order-in-original No. 74/Divi/2001 dated 12.12.2001.
It is, therefore, requested that the original duplicate copy of above bill of Entry may please be submitted to this office positively.
6. The record clearly reveals that duplicate copy of the bill of entry generated on Electronic Data Interchange System installed in the Customs and Central Excise Commissionerate which was treated as the original duplicate for the importer was submitted by the appellant-importer under the letter dated 29.9.1997 to the Revenue authorities, Mathura Range. Since there is no dispute about the fact that the said copy of the bill was generated by the Electronic Data Interchange System, which fact is also endorsed on the copy itself, there was no reason for the authorities below to suspect its genuineness on the ground that it did not bear the seal of the Customs officers. It will be noticed from the provisions of Rule 57G(3), which provided that no credit shall be taken by the manufacturer unless the inputs were received in the factory under cover of any of the documents enumerated therein, there is a clear reference not only to "triplicate copy of a bill of entry in Sub-cause (c), but also to "duplicate copy of a bill of entry generated on a Electronic Data Interchange System installed in any Customs or Central Excise Commissionerate" in Sub-clause (k) thereof. There was no valid reason to discard the original meant for importer, which was the duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry, since it was "computer generated" from the office of the Revenue department itself, and there was no allegation that it was not genuine. The modvat credit was, therefore, availed under a valid modvatable document. The impugned orders denying admissibility of modvat credit, and seeking recovery of the duty amount and imposing penalty cannot, therefore, be sustained and are hereby set-aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
[Dictated and pronounced in the open Court]