2016 (5) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?" 2. The question arises in the following background. The respondent assessee was engaged in the manufacture of NES powder and liquid chemical falling under Chapters 38, 28 and 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, on job work basis for M/s. PyreneRai Metal Treatments Ltd. The assessee was holding Central Excise Registration Certificate and was availing modvat credit on duty paid inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The excise department noticed that the assessee had taken modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 7,00,310/on certain inputs received during the month of January 1995 to May 1995 under different endorsed invoices. In all invoices, consignee was M/s. PyreneRai Metal Treat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ility to modvat credit, the rule has been suitably amended with effect from 01.04.94 by which invoices issued by the manufacturers of goods and the dealers in the prescribed form/AR1 or Triplicate copy of Bill of Entry are considered valid duty paying documents. As such endorsement to duty paying documents is eliminated. So the claim of the appellants on the endorsed invoices for availing for credit is not admissible. It is further observed from the record that 217 impugned invoices issued during the period 22.05.95 to 28.09.95 (May'95 to Sept.'95) were endorsed by M/s. Pyrene Rai Metal Treatment Pvt. Ltd in favour of the appellants. The appellant also admitted in their appeal memorandum as well as at the time of personal hearing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eme under Notification No.27/92CE Acceptance document for Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 8. In the case of M/s. Spa Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd vs. CCE Pune2003( 58) RLT 110(CegatMum), which distinguished the case in M/s. Balmer Laqwrie & Co. ltd vs. CCE. Kanpur2000( 116) ELT 364(Tribunal), it was held the same principle as in the case of M/s. Guric Chem Pvt. Ltd. 9. In the case of CCE, Mumbai vs. M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints ltd.1986( 26) ELT 57(Tribunal), it was observed that in order to claim proforma credit, it is not essential that the manufacturer, who availed proforma credit, should be shown as the consignee in GPI or there should be a subsidiary gate pass in his name. These presc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tain conditions, as document for the purpose of said Rules. Likewise, under notification dated 4.7.1994, the Central Government had prescribed invoices issued by a manufacturer from the factory or his depot or dealer of an excisable goods registered with the Central Excise Officer or an importer from his godown or dealer of an imported goods registered with the Central Excise Officer containing the details, as are prescribed under Rule 57GG as the documents for the purpose of Rule 57G. In other words, subject to fulfilling the conditions provided in the said notifications, the invoices issued by the said category of persons would qualify a manufacturer to avail cenvat credit on the inputs used. As noted by the CIT(Appeals), Rule 57G amended....