DE-NOCIL CROPN. PROTECTION LTD. Vs. CCE, PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are manufacturers of Insecticides/Pesticides. The manufacture is carried out in their factory at Khed in Ratnagiri District. One of the inputs for the manufacture of Insecticides is an imported chemical called Chlorpyrifos Technical. The subject of the present appeal is the denial of modvat credit in respect of this input and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant under the impugned order in original. The facts are that the appellant imported some consignments of Chlorpyrifos Technical at Cochin Port and cleared them under 11 bills of entry. The goods were first stored in their godown at Cochin. Part of the imported goods were sold to independent buyers at Cochin and the remaining quantity was transferred to their factory at Khed for use as an input in the manufacture of Insecticides/Pesticides. The appellant's godown at Cochin has been registered with the local Central Excise authorities for the purpose of transaction in modvatable goods. They issued "Stock Transfer Note/Order" in respect of the quantities of Chlorpyrifos Technical transferred from Cochin to the aforesaid factory at Khed. The denial of modvat credit has been made for the reason that "Stock Transfer Note/Order" is not a prescribed document for the purpose of availing modvat credit.

(2.) The appellants contest the finding that "Stock Transfer Note/Order" is not an authorized document. It is their submission that since their godown at Cochin has been registered for dealing in modvatable inputs, that godown at Cochin is a registered dealer for modvatable inputs. The documents issued by that godown should be accepted for the purpose of modvat. It is pointed out that modvat rules permit taking of credit on an input based on transfer documents issued by a dealer. It is their contention that the "Stock Transfer Note/Order" contained all the particulars required in an invoice and is to be treated as an invoice. It has been called "Note or Order" because the transfer of the goods did not involve sale or receipt of payment. Otherwise, it contained all the required particulars. Further, payment of duty on the goods, its receipt in the godown at Cochin and its transfer as input to Khed factory, all remains fully evidenced by bills of entries and other documents. It has specifically been pointed out that the appellant's godown register document all receipts and disposals of modvatable goods and the Central Excise authorities at Cochin had accepted the appellants RG -23D register which indicated the transfer of goods under "Stock Transfer Note/Order" to the appellant's factory. During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel for the appellants also pointed out that the objection is contrary to the position clarified in the Regional Advisory Committee Meeting held on 28.6.1986 under the Chairmanship of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. The appellants have referred to point No. 8 in the Minutes of Meeting which reads as under: - -

(3.) The learned Counsel also submitted that in this case no dispute should have been raised even otherwise since this was a case of import of raw materials by a manufacturer and the appellants themselves had imported the goods and the Tribunal had held in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of C Ex. Pune, : 2000 (122) ELT 790 that modvat credit of additional duty of Customs could be taken partly at different factories of the importer.