Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
S.T.S. Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 19 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(111)ELT870(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit.
2. Appellant has its registered office at Mumbai and two factories at Pune and Tarapur. It imported a consignment of yellow phosphorous, the bill of entry filed for clearance of which have its address of the registered office. Subsequently, the consignment along with bill of entry went to Tarapur where credit was taken on that part. The remaining portion of the consignment and the bill of entry went to Pune where credit was taken on the remaining part. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner has disallowed the credit taken at the second stage at Pune on two grounds.
3. The first ground is that the bill of entry bearing the address of the registered office at Mumbai was not a valid document for taking credit. The ratio of this Tribunal's decision in Larsen & Toubro Limited v. C.C.E. - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 948 squarely applies to the facts of this case. There is no objection to credit being taken in the factory against the bill of entry bearing address of the company owning the factory.
4. The Second objection is that credit could not be taken by two factories on the same document, not being permitted by the law or instructions of the Board.
5. The contention of the appellant, that if there was a lapse it was procedural and can it necessarily be remedied by, for example, issue of an invoice or an appropriate document under Section 57F(1) by the factory at Tarapur, is countered by the departmental representative who says that it has not been established that total of the credit taken is not more than the total of the amount of the additional duty paid shown as paid on the bill of entry. However the reverse of the bill of entry itself bore endorsements made by the officers of the factories for credit taken at that factory. The total of the amounts mentioned in these endorsement is equal to the total of the additional duty shown as being leviable and paid. The only possible objection that now remains is that, strictly speaking, a bill of entry could not be endorsed as a document for taking credit. In our view the ratio in the Larsen & Toubro case would apply by extension to the facts of this case. The importer is a company which owns both the factories. The entire amount of credit could, without objection have been taken by either of the factories. To deny the credit in this situation because it has partly taken by one factory and partly by the other would not be justifiable. On the facts of this case we hold that credit was rightly taken.
6. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.