VARDHMAN ACRYLICS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE issue involves in this appeal is denial of Modvat credit on the basis of Bill of Entry produced by the appellants herein.

(3.) THE appellants have imported capital goods like PVC pipe fittings, Gaskets, CPVC and CPVC Pipes etc. during the year 1998. They mis -placed Triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry No. 2975 dated 23.07.1998 and No. 1916 dated 15.07.1998 under which goods were imported. They also lodged Police complaint on 18.05.2000 and 26.05.2000 and simultaneously addressed letters to Custom Authorities. They ordered for re -construction of Bill of Entries. Meanwhile, appellants took credit on the strength of photocopy of the bill of entry duly certified by the bankers and Notary Public, vide Entry No. 124 and 125 dated 14.07.2001 and informed in writing to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Ankleshwar and Customs Authorities, vide, letter dt. 16.07.2001 whereas it is a contention of the Department that the appellants had wrongly availed the credit of Rs. 9,52,291/ - (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Two Hundred Ninety One only) on the strength of in eligible duty paying documents. Therefore, a Show -Cause -Notice was issued on 19.06.2002. On adjudication of the matter, they have confirmed duty demand along with interest and also imposed penalty as proposed in the Show -cause -Notice. This order has been assailed before the Tribunal. 5. Heard both sides at length. The ld. counsel for the appellants have taken me through the Cenvat credit Rules and procedure to be followed in availing the same. It is noticed that there has been constant change in the procedure in availing the Cenvat credit and also the nature of the document which are eligible for availment of such credit. Earlier under 57G assessee was entitled to take credit on Triplicate copy of Bill of Entry which supposed to be retained by him. Rule 57G also prescribes other documents eligible for Cenvat credit. Rule 57G was omitted from 31.03.2000, therefore Rule 57AE came into force with effect from 01.04.2000. This shows under Clause (b), Bill of Entry is legally permitted for claiming the credit as against Triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry. Again Rule 7 of the Cenvat credit Rules 2000 has been introduced with effect from 01.04.2001. Clause (c) of the Rule 7 of the Cenvat credit also prescribes Bill of Entry as against Triplicate copy of Bill of Entry. In the instant case, the Show -Cause -Notice though refers to the Rule 7 of the year 2000 -01, but the Commissioner (A) had discussed about the old Rules and dismissed the claim of the appellants. He never referred to Rule 7 or 57AE of the Cenvat credit rules at all. Thus, I find an error apparent on the face of the record. The appellants have also produced a certificate issued from proper officer apart from photo copy of bill of entry which has been Notarised photo copy of Bill of Entry, Original for duplicate copy of the Bill of entry which has been obtained from Bank. The ld. counsel for the appellants relied upon the following decisions