TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, the Show Cause Notice dated 04.11.2016 has been decided and the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed demand of Rs. 2,44,07,004/- on the grounds of taking and utilising irregular credit by the appellant. A penalty of Rs. 1,22,03,502/- has also been imposed by the Adjudicating Authority (impugned order). 2. The issue, in brief, is that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing insecticides, on job work basis, for Coromandel International Ltd., (CIL). The Department noticed that the appellant had availed credit on certain Bill of Entries (BoEs) which were not in their name but were in the name of CIL, Chennai and availment of credit against such BoEs by the appellant appeared to be irregular and in contravention of Rule 9 of Cenvat Cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue before the Hon'ble Apex Court in appeal was not one of admissibility of MODVAT credit on the basis of an endorsed Bills of Entry. The view of the Adjudicating Authority was that the Hon'ble Supreme Court essentially endorsed the legal position that the provision relating to specific documents evidencing duty payment (in that case the Bills of Entry) was a mandatory requirement for availing MODVAT credits. He also held that the said judgment was in the context of Rule 57G of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944, wherein, the Bills of Entry was also one of the valid documents and the fact that the CBEC Circular No. 96/7/95-CX dated 13.02.1995 recognized a importer's Bills of Entry endorsed in favour of a consignee by the Customs Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal Vs M/s SS Cropeare Ltd., [2016-TIOL-2151-CESTAT-DEL] 5. Learned AR on the other hand reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 7. The issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant could have taken the credit in respect of materials received under the cover of BoEs, which were not in their name but were endorsed by the original importer (CIL) in their favour. Before we proceed, the admitted position in this case is that there is no allegation that the materials covered under the said BoEs have not been received by the appellant in their factory or has not been used in the manufacture of goods which have been cleared on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no legal provision for the same. This is in view of the fact that Rule 9 was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which mandated that an importer, who issues an invoice on which the Cenvat Credit can be taken, shall get registered. We find that Rule 9 of CCR includes, inter alia, a Bill of Entry. We have gone through the Circular No. 179/13/96 dated 09.02.1996, where, in view of certain difficulties in availment of credit due to different names etc., appearing on invoices, BoEs etc., a concept of endorsement of BoEs by importer was introduced for availing credit, subject to certain guidelines. Though, this was in the context of Rule 57G/57/T of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, but this is equally applicable in the context of BoEs under Rule 9 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....because it is not in their name as long as the duty paid character of the good in respect of the said BoE is not doubted. This is the ratio which can be drawn from the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, when the BoE, per se, is a valid document in terms of CCR and merely because it was endorsed by the original importer in favour of the appellant, it cannot take away the fact that the same would still be a valid document for taking credit especially when the payment of duty in terms of said BoE or the receipt of goods in the factory of the appellant are not doubted or disputed. We find that Commissioner has essentially relied on the amendment of 2014 in support that all the importers were now required to issue invoices and fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Cenvat Credit of duty paid inputs received by them from M/s Bayer Cropscience India Ltd., Mumbai, who had imported the same and had endorsed the BoE in the name of the appellant. The Tribunal, inter alia, held that there is no dispute about the duty paid character of the inputs received by the respondent and utilization of inputs and the only technical objection raised by the Revenue seems to be that BoE was endorsed by the importer in favour of the appellant by the principal manufacturer and such endorsed BoEs cannot be accepted. It was also noticed that there is no provision under the law to bar availment of Cenvat Credit on the basis of endorsed BoE. The appeal filed by the Department against dropping of demand on this ground in favou....