Judgements

Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 April, 2003

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 April, 2003
Bench: K Kumar, S T C.


ORDER

C. Satapathy, Member (Technical)

1. After hearing the matter for some time, we find that it is possible to decide the appeal at the stay stage itself. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to decide the appeal.

2. Shri D.B. Shroff, learned Advocate for the appellants states that Cigarettes were specified as final product eligible for modvat credit under Notification No. 10/2000-CE (NT) dtd. 01/03/2000. The appellants filed a declaration under Rule 57G in respect of the inputs for Cigarettes. They also filed a declaration in respect of the inputs lying in stock as on 01/03/2000 and took credit of duty on such inputs. In the impugned order in original, the Deputy Commissioner denied the credit of duty on inputs lying in stock on the ground that such inputs were not eligible inputs since Cigarette was not an eligible final product prior to 01/03/2000. In the order in appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the credit on the ground that the inputs in question cannot be visualized as received by the appellants immediately before the date of acknowledgement of their Rule 57G declaration. Shri Shroff also states that the demand raised by the Department denying the credit on inputs is clearly time barred, as there is no allegation of fraud, suppression etc.

3. We have heard Shri M.K. Gupta, Jt. C.D.R. for the Revenue.

4. We observe that under the amended legal provisions, amended Cigarettes have been brought under the modvat credit scheme and Rule 57H allows credit of duty on inputs lying in stock subject to filing a declaration which has been duly filed by the appellants. The reasons advanced by the lower authorities in the order in original and in the order in appeal for denying such credit are not convincing. The Department has not doubted the quantity of stock reported by them to be lying in stock. Hence the appellants are eligible for availing the credit on such inputs.

5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities and allow the appeal.

(Pronounced in Court)