TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 522
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring printed laminated rolls and availing modvat credit on inputs. The appellant had taken modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,28,806/- on the strength of bill of entry No. B/E/BTCC/TYP/2000-T.12 dated 22-8-1998 on 6-10-1998, which according to the Revenue, was inadmissible because, the bill of entry was neither in the name of the appellant nor endorsed to the appellant. The adjudicating authority on the basis of the material on record held that, since the bill of entry was neither addressed to the manufacturer nor to their head office and was not even endorsed to their manufacturing unit, there was no reason to hold the credit to be admissible. As regards the demand of Rs. 1335/-, it was found that, since the input was not declared against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istered office was not mentioned, but the address of the branch office was given. The provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 only require that, the inputs should be received under the cover of an enumerated document, which in the present case was a duplicate copy of a bill of entry generated on electronic data exchange system installed in the Customs Commissionerate, which is a document specified in clause (k) of sub-rule (3) of rule 57G of the said Rules. Since the modvat credit was availed by the appellant under the said modvatable document, giving of address of the branch office in the "importer's details" was not relevant for deciding the modvatability of the document. In this context, we may refer to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the name of BHEL is shown as the importer and its Bombay address is given. Giving of address will not invalidate the document so as to disentitle the appellant-manufacturer (BHEL) to take modvat credit when, admittedly, the goods were received at the factory of BHEL at Bhopal under the cover of triplicate copies of these bills of entry. There was no need for the department to superimpose a requirement of the names of the units of the importer who was the manufacturer (BHEL), being shown in the bills of entry." "8.3 There is one more important angle to this issue. Modvat/Cenvat credit can be taken by a manufacturer. The word 'manufacturer' is to be construed as per the definition of 'manufacture' and would include not only a person w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rter's name who has forwarded the goods to the recipient-manufacturer under the cover of such document. In any event, there is absolutely no reason to deny Modvat credit to the appellant in respect of three bills of entry on the ground that though the name of the appellant who was a manufacturer and the assessee was mentioned as the importer, the name of its unit was not mentioned. Though the manufacturer's unit or units may require to be assessed separately having regard to the scheme of the levy and collection of excise duty, the manufacturing units themselves are not 'manufacturers' or 'assessees'. The manufacturer and assessee would necessarily be a 'person' and not a mere unit. Therefore, the requirement of claiming modvat credit under....