STANDARD INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order -in -Appeal No. 193/2001 (H -I) C.E., dated 13 -11 -2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad.

(2.) THE issue relates to Modvat credit on imported goods. The appellants are the manufacturers of Metal Containers made of black sheets, etc., falling under Chapter Sub -heading No. 7310.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed credit of duty paid on the inputs viz. CR Coils, Steel Sheets, Tin Plates, CR Strips, etc., under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. A Show Cause Notice has been issued to the party alleging that the credit of duty amounting to Rs. 94,345/ - availed by them irregularly should not be reversed under Rule 57 -I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants have availed credit based upon the 5 invoices issued by the registered dealer. The Assistant Commissioner who adjudicated the matter confirmed the demand on the ground that the invoices are not pre -authenticated by the proper officer. According to the Department, the 5 invoices are not duly authenticated by the proper officer, which is the mandatory requirement as per the rules. Hence, they are not valid duty paid documents for availing Modvat credit. Further, as per proviso to Rule 57G(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, no credit or receipt entry shall be allowed under this Rule after six months of the date of issue of the Bill of Entry. The Bill of Entry in the instant case is dated 27 -5 -1998 and the dealer has been registered in December, 1998 and hence the receipt entry of the Bill of Entry entered in the records maintained by the dealer has been made after six months i.e. beyond the time -limit prescribed as per the proviso to Rule 57G(6).

(3.) SHRI M. Masilamani, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants, submitted that the denial of Modvat credit is not in accordance with the provisions of law. He said that the point at issue has been properly analysed by the Tribunal in the case of Hamco Mining and Smelting Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 811 (Tri. - Mumbai). In this connection, he drew our attention to Para 9 of the said decision, which is as under :