JALDARSHAN TEXTILE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per facts on record appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cotton/man made fabrics falling under Chapter 52 & 54 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed declaration of inputs lying in stock and as contained in the final product lying in stock as on 31 -3 -2003/1 -4 -2003 with their Jurisdictional Range Superintendent for availing the transitional credit on inputs as per the provisions of sub -rule 3 of Rule 9(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2003 read with Notification No. 35/2004 -C.E. (N.T.). Subsequently, they filed additional declarations on 12 -5 -2003 and 26 -5 -2003 including more stock of the said inputs. The authorities below have rejected their claim of deemed Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 3,21,905/ - on the ground that no stock of grey cotton fabrics was declared in the first declaration filed on 1 -4 -2003 whereas in the subsequent declarations the same was shown as lying in the stock.

(2.) THE appellants on the other hand have produced the lorry receipts showing that the goods were being transported, which stands rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that such transportation of the goods from Tamil Nadu in respect of lorry receipts issued on 31 -3 -2003, cannot be arrived at the appellants factory.

(3.) I find that the Tribunal in the case of Elecon Fabrics v. Commissioner of Customs and C.Ex., Rajkot reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 694 (Tri. - Ahmd.) has held that in terms of the Boards Circular No. B3/3/2003 -TRU dated 28 -5 -2003, deemed credit can be availed in respect of material lying at places other than registered premises subject to certain conditions. Non -discloser of address of premises where goods were lying and name of the transporter cannot be a ground to deny deemed credit in view of CBEC Circular No. 703/19/2003 -CX., dated 25 -3 -2003. I also note that Boards Circular No. 714/30/2003 -CX., dated 14 -5 -2003 allows a manufacturer to file additional declarations declaring the stock of the above mentioned items and claim onetime credit thereon provided such declarations are made by 26 -5 -2003. As such it becomes clear that even the stock which is not actually reached the appellants premises but was lying somewhere else, the benefit of deemed credit is required to be extended as long as it can be established that the goods stands purchased by the manufacturer. In view of the above, I am once again constrained to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration in the light of the above Circulars of the Board and the Tribunals decision. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.