Whether credit deniable on the basis that bill of entry does not bear any stamp or seal of Customs Authorities?

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2689

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR VERSUS ACC LTD.

Citation:-2015 (315) E.L.T. 111 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief facts:- The appeal filed by the Revenue arises from Order-in-Appeal No. SVS/123/NGP-C/2006, dated 23-3-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur.
Vide the impugned order, the learned lower appellate authority set aside the order dated 31-8-2001 passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, allowing credit of Rs. 25,21,246/- availed by the respondent, M/s. ACC Ltd. in respect of capital goods imported by them vide Bill of Entry No. 3651, dated 23-1-1996. Aggrieved of the same, the Revenue is before tribunal.
The only ground urged in the appeal memorandum is that the appellant did not furnish the duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry duly certified by the Customs with regard to payment of duty, but took credit on the basis of reconstituted bill of entry and the said reconstituted bill of entry does not bear any stamp or seal of the Customs authorities and, therefore, availment of credit by the respondent is not in accordance with law.
Another ground which has been urged is that the credit has been availed much after the six months period from payment of duty and, therefore, the belated availment of credit beyond the period of six months is not permissible.

Appellant’s contention:-The learned Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum.

Respondent’s contention:- The learned Consultant for the respondent submits that there is no dispute in this case that the appellant did receive the goods or the customs duty payments were made. In fact, as can be seen from the impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner, Madras has confirmed the payment of duty by the respondent and also indicated that on the reconstituted copy of the Bill of Entry, the same will not bear pin point typing of the duty amount. However, payment of duty has been verified with the original copy of the Bill of Entry No. 3651, dated 23-1-1996 and the duty liability has been discharged. Since the duty liability has been discharged and confirmed by the Customs authorities and the goods had been received by the respondent, the impugned order is sustainable in law. As regards the limitation of six months for availment of credit, he submits that same would apply on inputs and not on capital goods and this has been clarified by the Ministry vide Circular No. 199/33/96-CX., dated 23-4-1996. Accordingly, he pleads for upholding the impugned order and dismissing the Revenue’s appeal.

Reasoning of judgement:- A reading of the impugned order makes it absolutely clear that the Customs authorities at Chennai have confirmed payment of duty by the appellant at the time of importation of the capital goods. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had received the capital goods and installed and used the same in the manufacture of dutiable final products. In these circumstances, the appellant is rightly entitled for the credit. Therefore, they do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower appellate authority. Accordingly, they do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and dismiss the same.

Decision:- Appeal dismissed.

Comment:-The essence of the case is that when it is not in dispute that the appellant had received the capital goods and installed and used the same in the manufacture of dutiable final products, the cenvat credit should not be denied for want of custom seal on the duplicate copy of bill of entry. The substantive benefit of credit should not be denied for procedural lapses when the substantial conditions have been fulfilled. Moreover, it was also stated that the time limit of availment of cenvat credit within a period of six months is not applicable in case of capital goods.

Prepared by:- Monika Tak

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2689

Post a Comment

Query