Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Central Excise vs Subros Ltd. on 5 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(100)ELT546(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 24-10-1994.
2. Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the respondents have availed the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs without making any entry in the statutory records in form of RG 23A Part I register. He submitted that the maintenance of records in form of RG 23A Part I is a mandatory and the respondents are not entitled to take Modvat credit without maintaining the statutory record. Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhag Polymers v. C.C.E., New Delhi reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 41 (Tribunal).
3. Shri B.B. Gujral, ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in the similar circumstances in the case of the respondents' own case reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 602 (T), the Tribunal held that the substantive benefit if otherwise, duty should not be disallowed merely on procedural infraction. He submitted that in the present case, the Commr. (Appeals) in the impugned order after verifying from other records held that there is no doubt in regard to the receipt of the inputs into the factory and there use for the manufacture of the final product. He therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides. In this case, the demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority only on the ground that the inputs received by the respondents are not entered in the RG 23A Part I register. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held as under :
"The maintenance of RG 23 Pt. I register no doubt is a mandatory requirement and every assessee availing the Modvat credit on the inputs is required to make entry of the inputs received in the factory and issue thereof for the purpose of use in the manufacture of final product under Rule 57G(3) but before disallowing the Modvat credit, it is also to be seen as to whether the other conditions as stipulated in Modvat rule for availing the credit are satisfied. The photocopies of form 31, material receipt register, material receipt note, daily receipt register, B in card, stock (CKD), Bill of Entry No. 204599, establish the receipt of the inputs into the factory on 31-1-1991. Photocopies of material issue slips supplied by the apellants also establish the said inputs i.e total quantity of 4387 kgs. issued for use during the period 7-2-1991 to 22-3-1991. So there is no doubt in regard to receipt of the inputs into the factory and issue thereof to various deptts. of the factory for the manufacture of final products. In this case so far as the other requirements of the Modvat rules are concerned, they are fully satisfied. I therefore, find that the Modvat credit otherwise legally admissible to the appellants cannot be disallowed only on the ground of not making of entry of receipt and subsequent disposal of the inputs in the RG 23A Pt. I Register."
5. The Revenue relied upon the decision in the case of Bhag Polymers v. C.C.E. supra, I find that the facts of this case are different from the present case. The goods were confiscated which were found in access in RG 23A record in the case of Bhag Polymers (supra). In the present case, no such proceedings were taken place. The Tribunal in the respondents' own case in Subros Ltd. v. C.C.E. supra after considering the earlier decisions of the Tribunal held that there is no dispute that the assessees have been able to make substantive compliance with the provisions, therefore, they are entitled for the Modvat credit though the inputs were not entered in the RG 23A Part I register.
6. In the present case, the Commr. (Appeals) after verifying from the records came to the conclusion that there is no doubt in regard to the receipt of the inputs into the factory and are used in the manufacture of final product.
7. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed.