TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 and availing modvat credit facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules of 1944. It appeared from the scrutiny of their returns in the month of May 1997, and other modvat/input documents that, the appellant had availed modvat credit wrongly on the strength of invoices mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the notice for the reasons shown therein. As regards invoice Nos. 11 to 17 of Annexure 'A', the case of the Revenue was that modvat credit was availed after the expiry of six months, which was permissible under Rule 57G(5) of the said Rules. As regards the invoice at S.No. 27 of Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice, the reason for disallowance was that it was claimed an extra copy of invoice and not on a modvatable document. In respect of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned, it was submitted that since the credit was availed on the strength of extra copy of the invoice, the appellant did not press for this item also. Therefore, we are concerned with invoices at S. Nos. 12 to 17 and 29 to 31 of Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice. 5.The learned authorized representative for the department, on the other hand, supported the reasoning and findings of the authorities below and submitted that since the invoices at S. Nos. 12 to 17 of Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice were issued on 28-11-1996 and credit was availed in all these cases on 28-5-1997, it was required to be disallowed because, the date on which the credit was availed fell beyond six months from the date of issue of the invoices which wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xure 'A' to the show cause notice, on the ground that the invoices were issued on 28-11-1996, while the credit was availed on 28-5-1997, i.e., one day beyond the period of six months. Under sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G, credit shall not be taken by the manufacturer, "after six months of the date of issue of any document specified in sub-rule (3)". The wordings of this provision indicate that the period of six months should be a clear period after the date of issue of the documents and, therefore, the date of issue of the document cannot be included while computing the period of six months. The word "after" occurring in sub-rule (5) clearly indicates that the period subsequent to the date of issue is to be counted for computing six months. The w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be: "Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., New Kamani Chambers, 32, Nicol Rd., Ballard Estate, Bombay 400 039". 8.1Admittedly, the appellant BHEL is the assessee and their manufacturing unit is in Bhopal. The goods were brought to that factory. The Revenue has refused to rely on these documents on the ground that the importer's name and address is not shown to be that of the manufacturer's unit of BHEL at Bhopal. The modvat credit is denied on the ground that these documents are not of the nature contemplated under sub-rule (3)(c) of Rule 57G, because they are not in the name of BHEL (Bhopal). The question, therefore, arises whether sub-rule (3)(c) of Rule 57G requires the bill of entry to be in the name of manufacturer who receives the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f which the goods were brought to the factory of BHEL at Bhopal, were triplicate copies of bills of entry. The provision does not require that the bill of entry should be in the name of the manufacturer who receives the goods. The bill of entry would obviously show the name of the importer and its address. In the present case, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not required, because, a manufacturer can receive the goods in its factory which have been imported by someone else, provided the requisite documents show that the goods had been received in the same original condition of import in the factory under the cover of the triplicate copy of the bill of entry which may show the importer'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 ....