Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Maharaja International Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 23 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(86)ELT528(TRI-DEL)
ORDER K. Sankararaman, Member (T)
1. The Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur has filed this reference application stating that the following questions of law have arisen out of the Tribunal's Order No. A/625/96-NB, dated 26-2-1996 :-
(i) Whether credit can be allowed on the strength of endorsed bill of entry which is not prescribed as a document under Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 by the Board by virtue of powers conferred under Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
(ii) Whether Tribunal can allow Modvat credit on a document not prescribed under Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Arguing the matter on behalf of the applicant Collector, Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR stated that the Government have issued instructions to the effect that endorsed gate passes are valid evidence or valid documents evidencing the payment of duty, while no such instruction has been issued in respect of bills of entry against which Modvat Credit to extent of [Countervailing duty] duty is being availed of by the manufacturers. In the circumstances, he submitted that the questions of law as stated in the application may be referred to the High Court for their advice.
3. The party is not present nor have they arranged for representation.
4. We have taken note of the submissions and carefully examined the record. The Tribunal's order, which is the subject matter of this reference application spells out that the endorsed bill of entry does not cease to be a bill of entry, which is one of the documents prescribed under Rule 57G(2). There is no mention in Rule itself that a bill of entry, which contains an endorsement by the importer in favour of the transferee goes outside its purview. In the circumstances, the purported question of law comes down to a factual position only as to whether the endorsed bill of entry ceases to be one. In the circumstances, we are not satisfied that any question of law has arisen for reference to High Court. In view of this, the second question in the application namely whether the Tribunal can allow Modvat Credit on a document not prescribed under Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, does not arise for consideration at all. The reference application is dismissed.