TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n up for disposal under this Commissioner order. Sh. S. Chakrabarty (Advocate) & Sh. Ravi Ragavan (Advocate) Appeared on behalf of appellants IOCL & BPCL respectively. Sh. S. Chakrabarty appearing on behalf of IOC argued that issue involved in the present proceeding is taking of cenvat credit on the basis of endorsed bills of entry. Learned Advocate Submitted that Indian Oil Blending Ltd [IOBL] was a 100% subsidiary of IOC until the merger of the former with IOC on 10/05/2006 in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. That appellant IOCL procured inputs Additives from both indigenous & imported Sources. That imported additives are imported & controlled by IOCL head office in Mumbai and bills of entry are filed by IOCL'S marketing division. That after payment of duty the bills of entry are endorsed to IOCL who took Cenvat Credit on the basis of endorsed bills of entry. That show cause notices were issued to the appellant IOCL that the Credit taken was improper as the same was taken on the basis of on invalid document not prescribed under the Cenvat Credit Rules. That against the confirmation of demands the present appeals have been filed by the appellant. That....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cenvat credit. That by such amendments carried out w.e.f 1/9/1996 Revenue itself is of the opinion that there is no difference between bill of entry & endorsed bill of entry. He relied upon the case law of Bando India (P) Ltd vs CCE [2010(262)ELT 1103 (T)] to argue that there is no difference in the bill of entry & endorsed bill of entry & that the significance of endorsement is only to identity the person in whose name B/E has been endorsed. It was also his case that in the case of Maramgoa Ltd vs (UOI)[2005 (192) ELT (Bom)], affirmed by Supreme court [2008(229)ELT 481(SC)], there was even no endorsement on the B/E & still it was held that credit is admissible. That larger Bench CESTAT judgment, in the case of Balmer lawrie & Co. Ltd vs CCE Kanpur [2000 (116) ELT 364 (T)], is not applicable to the present proceedings as the same is misplaced as per the order of Bombay high court in Maramgoa Steel Ltd UOI (Supra) and Gujarat High court order in the case if Vimal Enterprise vs UOI (Supra) That other cases relied upon by the Revenue are also not applicable as they were only with respect to Credit on Central Excise invoices & not endorsed bills of entry. 2.2 Learned Advocate appeari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith effect from 01/9/96 CBEC had no power to specify any other document to take cenvat credit under Rule - 57 G of the Central Excise Rules 1944 as per substitution made under Notf No. 14/96-CE (NT) dt 23/07/1996. He made the bench go through Paras 3.7 to 3.11 of the OIO dt 30/11/09. It was also his case that CBEC Circulars No. 441/7/99-CX & 179/13/96-cx dt 29/02/1996 also prescribed endorsement attestation of bills of entry by proper officer of Customs. That in the absence of such endorsements credit availed by the appellants has been correctly rejected. That procedure prescribed for taking Credit are mandatory as has been held in the following case laws:- (i) CCE Chandigarh Vs Karam Chand Appliance [2009(238)ELT 706 (HP) (ii) CCE Vs Speetra Electronics [2009(235)ELT 795 (H.P)] (iii) M/s Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Ltd[2009(234)ELT 245 (H.P.)] 5.1 That as per the above case laws ratio laid by Bombay High Court, in the case of Maramgoa Steel Ltd Vs UOI (Supra), affirmed by Supreme court, is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it pertained to the period prior to 1/9/96. It was also argued by the Learned AR that the Claim of the appellants that entire cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the factory in original packed conditions. (b) Triplicate copy of Bill of Entry/duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry generated on EDI system is endorsed by the registered office/head office to the effect that consignment covered by the bill of Entry are delivered to the manufacturing unit for availing credit. 4. Where the imported goods. Are still in Customs dock area and the manufacture/importer decides to divert/transfer the goods. A declaration by the manufacture/importer can be made on the reverse of triplicate copy of bill of Entry duplicate copy of the bill of Entry generated on EDI system by the manufacturer/importer that consignments are being delivered to the unit (name of the unit) for availing credit and endorsed by the proper Officer of Customs for enabling the manufacturing unit to avail credit. 5. In cases where the imported goods are lying in the bonded warehouse from where diversion takes place either of entire consignment or part consignment, credit can be permitted provided ex-bond bill of Entry is filed for such entire/part consignments and that a declaration is made on the reverse of the said ex-bond triplicate copy of the bill of Entry/ duplicate c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as inputs in the factory of the appellant is also not doubted by the Excise authorities. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion, that in the facts of the present case, the appellant has established that the credit of duty on receipt of 3314.159 M.T. of imported shredded steel scrap from M/s. Essar Gujarat Ltd. has been taken in accordance with law. 10. For availing the credit of duty, what is required to be established under Rule 57G is that the inputs received are in fact duty paid. The procedure set out in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules is to ensure that the credit is taken on the basis of duty paid documents. The bill of entry is one such document set out in Rule 57G. The said rule does not require that the bill of entry should be in the name of the person claiming credit of duty. It is not in dispute that the goods imported and cleared on payment of duty by one person can be used as inputs and credit of duty can be claimed by another person by establishing that the imported duty paid goods have been received as inputs and that the importer has not taken credit of that duty. In the present case, it is established that the duty paid goods are received as inputs, ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsement is devoid of substance for more than one reason. Firstly, the credit is taken not because of endorsement but on the basis of bill of entry which also disclosed the name of the appellant, apart from the fact that the goods accompanying the Bill of entry were subjected to the payment of duty, and on clearance, were directly transported to the appellant's factory premises and were utilized by the appellants for installation of their factory, and no credit in respect of duty paid on those goods was taken by the contractor. Secondly, the effect of endorsement is only to amend the name of consignee and nothing more. Black's Law dictionary depicts the term "endorsement" as amendment of the installment signifying the same being made referable to a person other than the one disclosed earlier. And, it is not the case of the department that on endorsement of the Bill of entry in favour of the appellant, it was, in any manner, rendered to be invalid document or that the import under such document become unlawful." 6.3 Similar View was again expressed by CESTAT Delhi in the case of Sono Koya Steering Systems Ltd Vs CCE Delhi- III Gurgaon [2013 (296) ELT 481 (Tri-Del)]. In view ....