CCE Vs. BHARAT RUBBER WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the Department's appeal against the above captioned impugned order praying for setting aside the same and to restore the orders of the Assistant Collector dt. 12.11.1993. The facts of the case are that the respondents manufacture excisable goods falling under Chapter 39 and 40 of the schedule to this Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing benefit of modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. They had availed modvat credit of Rs. 87,460/ - on the strength of a Bill of Entry in the name of M/s. Associated Brothers, which has resulted in the issue of show cause notice on the ground that it was excisable and the procedure laid down and Trade Notice No. 57/87 dt. 7.8.1987 was not followed. After the receipt of the reply from the respondents to the show cause notice dt. 31.5.1993, and holding the personal hearing and herein (sic) the parties, the show cause notice is confirmed by the Assistant Collector. In the appeal by the respondents and impugned order it is held that the respondents are eligible for the modvat credit on the basis of the endorsement contained in the bill of entry and set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector. Hence this appeal.

(2.) SHRI K.L. Ramteke the Ld. JDR has contended that there is no bill of entry in the name of the respondents and the purchase on "high sea -sale" is not responsible to Assistant Collector and the impugned order is contrary to the earlier order of the respondents when the modvat is alone. Shri D.D. Gwalani the Ld. Counsel for the respondents has pointed out the endorsement of the bill of entry in the name of the respondents by Associated Brothers partners and also pointed out that the requirement of para 6.6. of the Trade Notice is complied by the respondents and the earlier order of the Collector is set aside by Tribunal in order No. 1038 -39/95 -WZB, dt. 19.5.1995 in E/Stay -244/95 -BOM in E/295/95 -BOM and the matter is remanded back for re -consideration. He has cited in the case of Maharaja International Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. According to it in para 2 it is held that a bill of entry endorsed by the importer in favour of the manufacture excisable goods it is not seized to be duty paying document nearly because it has been endorsed and the modvat credit is available on the basis of such endorsed bill of entry

(3.) PERUSED the orders of the lower authorities and the appeal memorandum and the trade notice regarding the modvat in sub -para 6.6 and also the bill of entry and the orders referred to by the Ld. Counsel of the Respondents. In view of the endorsed by the reversed of the bill of entry the grounds of appeal does not sustain. Apart from them the fact inform the Assistant Collector pointed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents in the letter dt. 20.10.1992 is not rebutted. The requirement of para 6.6 under the heading endorsement of entry is complied in the instant case. The ruling in is clearly applies to the facts of this case. The second ground of appeal in the identical case of the respondents the modvat credit is disallowed by the Commissioner taking contradictory stand by the same Collector involved in the same. In the instant case and the hand is rebutted orders of the Tribunal referred above. Whereunder the said order is said (sic) aside and the matter is remanded for consideration. In view of this position both grounds taken in the appeal are not sustainable. So the appeal cannot be allowed and it is rejected.