DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order of the adjudicating authority denying modvat credit of Rs. 5,50,986/ - to the appellant and directing its recovery as well as imposing penalty of the like amount and requiring interest to be paid.

(2.) THE appellant, a Government of India Undertaking, was manufacturing excisable goods falling under Chapter 85 and availing modvat credit facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules of 1944. It appeared from the scrutiny of their returns in the month of May 1997, and other modvat/input documents that, the appellant had availed modvat credit wrongly on the strength of invoices mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the notice for the reasons shown therein. As regards invoice Nos. 11 to 17 of Annexure 'A', the case of the Revenue was that modvat credit was availed after the expiry of six months, which was permissible under Rule 57G(5) of the said Rules. As regards the invoice at S. No. 27 of Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice, the reason for disallowance was that it was claimed an extra copy of invoice and not on a modvatable document. In respect of the bills of entry at S. Nos. 29 to 31 of Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice, the allegation was that these were in the name of BHEL ROD Bombay, which was not a manufacturing unit, but was a place for receiving material and diverting it to various units of BHEL.

(3.) ACCORDING to the appellant, there was a slip of one day in taking credit beyond six months in respect of invoices at S. Nos. 11 to 17. The adjudicating authority, however, held that in view of the restriction contained in Rule 57G(5) modvat credit was inadmissible in respect of these invoices. In respect of documents at S. Nos. 29 to 31 of Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice, the case of the assessee was that the bills of entry was in the name of BHEL ROD, Bombay and there was only a typographical error because, there was no manufacturing unit at ROD Bombay and the material was received at BHEL Bhopal in the original packing. The authorities below, however, rejected this contention holding that unless the documents were in the name of BHEL Bhopal, no credit should be allowed on the basis of these bills of entry.