TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants have two units - one at Pune and another at Noida; that as their unit at Pune was to be expanded, they had imported Injection Moulding machines, etc. and also procured machines from the domestic market during the period from June, 1998 to August, 1998 on payment of the appropriate Additional Customs Duty/Central Excise duty; that the capital goods imported under 3 Bills of Entry Nos. 1576, 2912 and 2615 were received at Pune and entered in RG 23C, Part-I; that, however, credit was not taken in RG 23C, Part II in respect of one Bill of Entry No. 1576, dated 5-6-1998; that in respect of Bill of Entry No. 2912, dated 9-6-98 they had taken part Modvat credit and in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n on the invoice/challan issued by Pune unit in favour of Noida unit since clause (h) of Rule 57AE does not specify any particular format of the invoice unlike, for example, in clauses (a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). He mentioned that after amendment of Rule 57T by the Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 9-2-1999, a Circular No. 441/7/99 CX, dated 23-2-1999, was issued that credit should not be denied and Department should ensure only that the capital goods in question have suffered duty and are being used in the process of manufacture. 3. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Commissioner has proceeded on the assumption that the credit had been originally availed at Pune unit; that as no credit was taken in respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the strength of which the credit was taken, etc., were all shown. 4. Countering the arguments Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, submitted that on enquiry Superintendent, Central Excise Range I, Division VI, Pune has reported that in the month of July, 1998, the Appellants had availed the credit against Bill of Entry Nos. 2615 and 2912 which was debited/reversed in the same month; that once the credit has been taken against a Bill of Entry, the endorsed bill of entry does not remain a proper duty paying document under Rule 57AE; that Rule 57AE specifies the duty paying documents for the purpose of taking Cenvat credit; that the endorsed duty paying document is not specified in Rule 57AE; that Board's Circular No. 179/13/96-CX, dated 29....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can be cleared on payment of duty as envisaged under Rule 57F/57S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and on the basis of such duty paying documents credit can be availed; that as such the entire exercise will be Revenue neutral. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The facts which are not in dispute are that the impugned capital goods were imported under three Bill of Entry and the appropriate Additional Duty of Customs, besides basic Customs duty had been paid by the Appellants and the said goods were received in their Pune unit. The Appellants' contention is that in respect of three machines covered by Bill of Entry No. 2912, they had not taken the Cenvat credit of duty at Pune unit and similar was the case in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich Cenvat credit can be taken. No doubt this invoice is to be issued in respect of capital goods of which credit has been taken and is cleared as such to some other unit. We find force in the submission of the learned Advocate that this challan is to be accepted as proper document for shifting of the capital goods, the receipt of which at Noida unit has not been disputed. Regarding taking of credit at Pune unit in respect of machines covered under Bill of Entry Nos. 2912 and 1576, we observe that the Range Superintendent in charge of their Pune unit has reported in his letter dated April, 2002 that M/s. Showpla (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. availed the credit against Bill of Entry No. 2615 and 2912 only which was debited/reversed in the same month. Fi....