Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Crystal Cable Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 23 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(102)ECC164
ORDER M.P. Bohra, Member (J)
1. Heard Shri N.K. Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the applicant/appellant company and Shri K. Sanyal, learned JDR for the Revenue.
2. Shri Chaudhary, learned Advocate submits that the Commissioner's observation that the bill of entry covering the MODVAT Credit of Rs. 2,99,861.00, does not bear the declaration as to who would avail of the MODVAT Credit, is apparently erroneous in view of the declaration made on the reverse of the bill of entry, and therefore, is not sustainable. He draws my attention to the Trade Circular No. 96/7/95-CX, dated 13.2.95 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed. He also relies upon the following decisions:
(i) In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. J.C.T. Limited, ;
(ii) In the case of Century N.F. Casting v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad, 2004 (175) ELT 466 (Tri.-Del.);
(iii) In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad v. Uttam Steel Limited, 2004 (172) ELT 1759 Tri.-Mumbai); and
(iv) In the case of Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III. Therefore, he submits that the appeals may be allowed.
3. Learned JDR supports the impugned Order.
4. In the present case, the Modvat Credit of Rs. 2,99,861.00 has been disallowed only on the ground that the endorsement made on the bill of entry relating to the said Credit, did not bear the declaration as to who would avail the Modvat Credit. The perusal of the Circular No. 96/7/95-CX, dated 13.2.1995 clearly indicates as follows:
"3. Where an entire consignment is sold out from the docks/bonded warehouse, the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry, duly signed and stamped by a proper officer of customs can be used for the purpose of availing Modvat by the user. In such situation, the Preventive Officer giving an out of charge order will also endorse/attest the duplicate and triplicate copies of Bill of Entry giving therein details of the consignee. The triplicate copy of Bill of Entry will also serve as the covering transport document."
4.1 In the present case, I find that the bill of entry has been duly signed and stamped by a proper officer of the Customs and is endorsed by the party. The matter is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Century N.F. Casting v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad, 2004 (175) ELT 466(Tri.-Del).
5. In view of the above discussions, I set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellant company. Stay Petition also stands disposed of.