JAYCO INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are manufacturers of confectionery products. In November 1996, they took Modvat credit of the Countervailing Duty paid on one of their inputs imported and cleared under Bill of Entry dated 30.3.96. This credit was taken on the basis of a certified photocopy of the duplicate Bill of Entry, issued by the Customs authorities. Both the original authority and the first appellate authority have denied this credit of the appellants on th ground that the credit had been taken on the basis of invalid document, not presecribed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The decision of the authorities is challeged in the present appeal on the ground that, the triplicate copy of Bill of Entry having been lost in transit, duly certified triplicate copy of Bill of Entry issued by the Customs authority was a valid document under Rule 57G for the purpose of Modvat credit. It has also been claimed that the TR -6 challan evidencing payment of duty and containing a reference to the relevant Bill of Entry should also have been accepted as proof of the duty -paid nature of the goods. Lt counsel for the appellants has reiterated these grounds and relied on the Tribunal's decision in CCE Vs. SRF Ltd. [2000 (36) RLT 90]. Ld. DR has reiterated the view taken in the impugned order and has argued that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 57G for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit on inputs cannot be deviated from and that the said rule required a triplicate copy of Bill of Entry alone to be used as duty paying document in respect of imported inputs for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit.

(2.) I have examined the rival submissions. I find that the cited decision of the Bench in the case of SRF Ltd. is a precedent consistently followed in cases where Modvat credit of CVD was denied by the departmental authorities on the ground that no document other than triplicate copy of Bill of Entry was acceptable under Rule 57G for the purpose of availment of such credit. In the cited case, such credit was taken on the basis of a photocopy of Bill of Entry duly attested by Customs and a TR -6 challan evidencing of CVD. I have no reason to deviate from the above precedent of allowing Modvat credit of CVD on imported inputs on the basis of TR -6 challan and photo copy of Bill of Entry duly attested by the Customs, in the absence of specific provision under Rule 57G providing for any alternative to triplicate copy of Bill of Entry in case of loss -in -transit of such copy. The credit of CVD to the extent of Rs.2,72,856/ - is, accordingly held to be admissible.

(3.) Yet another question which arises in this appeal relates to a credit of Rs. 35,548/ - which was taken in November 1996 by the appellants on the strength of a few invoces of a dealer, which ahowed another party as the consignee of the goods. This credit was denied by the authorities below on the ground that the invoces did not cite the appellants as the consignee. The impugned order indicates hat the invoces in question were issued to one M/s Kwality Offset and the goods covered thereunder were also delivered to them. The Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the appellants had not produced any evidence to show that M/s Kwality Offset, who were claimed to be the appellants job workers, had not taken Modvat credit of the duty paid on the goods. It has also been found that the contentions raised by the party had not been raised before the original authority. The above credit of Rs.35,548/ - has been denied on this basis.