Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Ramachandra Rexins Ltd. vs Cce on 2 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(89)ECR577(TRI.-BANGALORE)
ORDER V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. This appeal against order-in-appeal No. 317/97 dated 19.8.1997 is for allowing Modvat Credit of Rs. 1,62,984.80 availed on:
a) inadmissible input as per Notification No. 5/94 (NT) dated 1.3.1994 against Invoice Nos. 3326/30.6.94 and 3325/30.6.1994;
b) against Invoice No. 70 dated 31.7.1994 which is not a duplicate copy;
c) on an endorsed Bill of Entry No. 1973;
d) against Invoice Nos. 274 dated 23.7.1994, 275 dated 23.7.1994, 4406 dated 30.7.1994 and 4407 dated 30.7.1994, wherein the goods were consigned to the local office instead of the factory of the assessee; and
e) on an extra copy of the invoice No. 6407 dated 8.8.1994 which had been disallowed at original stage and subsequently the Order-in-Original was upheld by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Heard Shri P.C. Anand, Learned Chartered Accountant for appellants who submits that they do not dispute for (a) above and have reversed credit on 4.2.1995.
3. Regarding (b) & (c) he submits that transporter's copy had not reached them and amount was only Rs. 8,595/-. He cited VSL Alloys and submitted duplicate copy was later submitted to them.
4. Regarding (d) i.e. wrong address, (Rs. 4,177/-) he submitted that since goods had reached factory, credit was available in terms of Carborundum Universal .
5. Regarding (c) i.e. credit on endorsed Bill of Entry he cited as follows:
6. Heard Smt. Aruna Gupta, Learned JDR who reiterates.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made and the records of the case.
8. With respect to Invoice No. 70, (b) above, and Invoice No. 6407 (e) above, appellants cite - M/s. VSL Alloys, wherein it is held that when duplicate copy of invoice is lost, assessee may request Assistant Commissioner to verify and allow on original copy. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed credit on the ground that the appellants had not pleaded before original authority about submitting duplicate copy later to the Department. With respect to Invoice No. 70, where appellants claim to have found duplicate copy of invoice and sent to Range Superintendent along with RT-12, I find that on this procedural lapse alone, credit need not be denied. The matter is therefore remanded to original adjudicating authority for verification and re-consideration of the facts pleaded, in view of the case-law of M/s. VSL Alloys (supra). However, regarding Invoice No. 6047 dated 8.8.1994, credit was taken on extra copy, and it is not clear whether such a duplicate copy was later found and submitted. The case law of VSNL supra does not cover taking credit on an extra copy of Invoice (as here) but only on original, with verification. If duplicate is available for verification, then alone credit will be available for this Invoice No. 6047 dated 8.8.1994. Since, this needs factual verification, the matter is remanded for de novo consideration on this count too.
9. With respect to goods consigned to local office instead of factory, appellants do not press claim for invoice No. 4406 and 4407 both dated 30.7.1994. Hence, no orders are required on these.
10. With respect to Nos. 274 and 275 dated 23.7.1994, they claim that goods were received in their factory. This is a matter capable of factual verification through their RG. 23A Part-1 and other internal documents. If the inputs on such verification are shown to be received in the factory for use, to the satisfaction of the original authority, then mere procedural lapse in its having been consigned to office address shall not lead to denial of credit. The matter is remanded on this count also to original authority for reconsideration. While doing so, he shall be guided by the case-law in the case of CCE v. Carborundum Universal Ltd. as in .
11. With respect to the credit on endorsed Bill of Entry, appellants fairly concede that it was not a high sea sale, but cite Board's circular dated 13.2.1995 as well as case-laws noted above. It is not disputed that the goods were in fact received as inputs in the factory and were otherwise eligible for credit. In Filament India Ltd. in , an endorsed Bill of Entry has been held to be a valid document for credit. A similar view has been held in Superpax India Pvt. Ltd. in 1997 (94) ELT 194 (Tri). Further, in Krishna Insulation , it was held that endorsed Bill of Entry would qualify for credit even without high sea sales and mere procedural lapses cannot deny substantive benefit. Therefore, respectfully applying the ratio of these decisions, I find that the modvat credit would be available on the endorsed Bill of Entry.
12. In view of the aforesaid findings the order-in-appeal impugned is set aside (except on issues not disputed/pressed by appellants as noted above) and the credit on endorsed Bill of Entry is allowed by way of consequential relief. With respect to the credit on other documents, the matter is remanded for de novo consideration to the original authority with the above noted directions.
13. Appeal succeeds partly by way of remand and partly with consequential relief accordingly.
(Pronounced in open court on 2.2.1999).