Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Groz Backert Asia Ltd. vs C.C.E. Chandigarh on 30 January, 2001
ORDER
K.K. Bhatia, Member (Technical)
1. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Division vide his composite order dt. 5.2.98 has denied the modvat credit of Rs. 2,55,996.00 to the appellants availed as additional duty of Customs paid under the Bills of Entry Nos. 153578 and 153579, both dated 3.12.96. The Asst. Commissioner in his order has observed that the appellants had taken the credit of the above said amount on excess quantity. He had further observed that the receipt of the goods in india is recorded in the Bills of Entry and that the goods actually received had been entered in the assessees'records' that the amount of credit is admissible only in respect of such quantity entered and sine the credit amount of credit is admissible only in respect of such quantity entered and since the credit amount of Rs.2,55,996/- is taken in excess of the mentioned quantity in the modvat credit record, the same is accordingly denied.These finding are upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh in his order dt. 11.12.99.
2.The present appel is against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri Sudeep Sing, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the Revenue. The ld. Counsel for the appellants has drawn attention to the submissions made by the appellants before the original authority as extracted in his qicer.The appellants submitted before the original authority that there was a mix up of the quantities of the imported goods mentioned in the two Bills of Entry referred to above which were filed on the same date i.e., 3.12.96. It is submitted that the correct quantities of the two items imported under each of the e Bills of Entry are reflected in the accompanied invoices, in each case. It is argued that in any case the amount of credit availed by them is only as per the actual amounts of additional duty of customs (CVD) paid under these Bills of entry and therefore, there is no ground for the department to reduce the modvat credit. Shri A.k. Jain, JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue contends that the submissions of the appellants are not supported by the entries made in the Bills of Entry, on the strength of while, the modvat credit is availed. He stated that the prescribed document for the purpose of availing the modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is the Bill of Entry and not the accompanying invoice. He further stated that if there was any mistake in the quantity of the import goods mention din the Bills of Entry, the same should have been got rectified through the Customs authorities at the Port of import. Having not follow this procedure, it cannot be contended by the appellants that the modvat credit of the full amount should be allowed by reckoning the quantities of the goods as mentioned in the invoices.
3. I have considered these submissions. It is observed that the party made elaborate submissions before the original authority as o how a mistake had occurred in mentioning the quantities of the imported goods in the respective Bills of Entry. The lower authorities however, have not considered the same and have not recorded their findings thoron. In view of these facts, it is therefore but proper that the matter should go back to the original authority for reconsideration of the submission of the appellants and for giving his findings on the same.
4. The original authority in the same order has also denied the denied the modvat credit amounting to Rs.1,12,456/- to the appellants on the CVD paid on the import of the "Neecles" and not the "Banks" and since the needles were imported as trading items by the party, no modvat credit was admissible on the same. Even otherwise the party had not declared the needle banks as "inputs" in the declaration filed by them under Rule 57G. However, on considering the reply of the party, the Asst.Commissioner in his order came to the conclusion that the import goods were "Needle Blank" and not "Needles" as alleged. He has, however, observed that as regards the second objection that no declaration has been filed under Rule 57G, the party has made no submission which follows that they had nothing to say in their defence. He has therefore, held that needle blank had not been declared under Rule 57G and consequently, he had denied the credit of Rs.1,12,456/- to the appellants on this ground. With regard to this observation of the original authority, ld. Counsel for the appellants has drawn attention to the relevant portion of the Order-n-Original in which the submission of the party is recorded. The Asst. Commissioner in his order has himself observed that the party had contended before him that the item-"Needle Blanks" had been declared as one for the inputs in the declaration filed by them. In view of the facts, therefore, the finding of the original authority that the appellants had made no submission s in their defence with regard to this charge is not supported by the facts on record. On this point also, the matter will merit remand to the original authority to verify from the declarations filed by the party whether they had declared "Needle Blanks" as one of the inputs and decide the availability of the modvat credit on this item accordingly.
5. In view of the above analysis, the order passed by the lower authorities so long as it relates to the denial of the modvat credit of Rs.2,55,996/- and Rs.1,12,456/- to the appellants is set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority to pass a denovo order on taking into consideration the submissions made by the appellants on these points. They shall be afforced a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking a final view in the matter.
5. The appeal is thus allowed byway of remand in above terms.
(Announced and dictated in the Court)