Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Klockner Supreme Pentaplast Ltd. on 10 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(79)ECC437, 2002(140)ELT370(MP)
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
JUDGMENT
1. Shri B.C. Neema, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India-appellant and Shri M.H. Patil along with Shri Arun Mehata and Shri Sunil Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. With consent arguments were heard on merits.
3. This is an application moved by the Union of India under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short), against an order passed by the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) on 23-6-2000, whereby the CEGAT has refused to refer a question to be answered by this Court.
4. The facts material for deciding the said application are hereinafter mentioned in short as under:
The respondent No. 1 herein had filed an appeal before the CEGAT against disallowance of Modvat credit on the ground that the reconstructed triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry cannot be considered as valid document for availment of the Modvat credit. The CEGAT after considering the matter, recorded a finding the there was no dispute raised at any point of time by the Department i.e. the applicant herein that the inputs for which Modvat credit was obtained by the respondent No. 1 were duly received by it and were used in manufacture of the declared final finished products and receipt of the goods under original copy of the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry was also not controverted by the Department. Subsequently, they had submitted an attested copy of the triplicate Bill of Entry, which was obtained by it under the provisions of the Levy of Fees (Customs Documents) Regulation, 1970, after payment of required amount of Fees for grant of certified copy. For our perusal, certified copies of the Bill of Entry issued in favour of respondent No. 1 by the Department, were filed.
5. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the CEGAT was of the view that the Modvat credit was wrongly disallowed to the appellant-respondent No. 1 herein, therefore, it allowed the appeal and held respondent eligible to avail of the Modvat credit in the said matter. Against this order, the Union of India felt aggrieved and moved an application for reference of the question of law to be answered by this Court. That application has also been disallowed, on the ground that no question of law arises in such a case.
6. We have gone through both the orders, perused the record. In our considered opinion, no question of law arises in this matter for consideration of this Court. The CEGAT has recorded a finding that respondent No. 1 had actually submitted the Bill of Entry in triplicate in original at the time of taking the Modvat credit but subsequently it was lost, on account of shifting of office, but to satisfy the Department, they had once again obtained certified copy from the Department and produced the same. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly hold that for such a matter, no substantial question of law arises and rejected the application of the applicant. We find no ground for interference in the said matter. The M.C.C. is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.