ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether Modvat credit of duty can be taken on the strength of endorsed Bill of Entry. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Low Density Poly Ethylene (LDPE) films and packages. For manufacture of these items, they procure LDPE granules from the market. On scrutiny of the records and documents filed by the Appellant, it was noticed that they had purchased imported inputs/raw materials on endorsed Bill of Entry and availed Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs/raw materials. It was alleged that there was no provision to take Modvat credit on the strength of endorsed Bill of Entry. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the Appellant asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit should not be denied to them and why the amount utilized by them should not be recovered from them. In reply, the appellants submitted that they had purchased the raw materials from M/s. Calcutta Chemical Agencies; that M/s. Calcutta Chemical agencies had imported LLDP from Saudi Arabia; that the entire quantity of the raw materials imported was sold to the appellants and the relevant Bill of Entry was endorsed in favour of the Appellants; that since the Appellants received the entire consignment covered by the Bill of Entry, they used the same for the manufacture of the final product and took Modvat credit of duty paid on the goods. After careful consideration of the submissions made, the Deputy Collector adjudicating the case held that Modvat credit cannot be taken on the strength of endorsed Bill of Entry and confirmed the demand. In appeal, the ld. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Dy. Collector and hence the appeal before us,
2. Shri M.P. Dev Nath, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the issue of taking Modvat credit in live strength of endorsed Bill of Entry came up before the Tribunal in a number of cases and the Tribunal had held that Modvat credit of duty can be taken on the strength of endorsed Bill of Entry. In support of his contentions, the ld. Counsel cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Filaments India Ltd., reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 214 and in the case of Alcobex Metal Ltd. in the Tribunal’s Final Order No. A/239/97-NB, dated 31-1-1997. The ld. Counsel submitted that the issue has been decided as aforesaid covers their case fully. He, therefore, prayed that their appeal may be allowed with consequential relief.
3. Shri Y-R- Kilaniya, ld. JDR, reiterates the findings of the lower authority.
4. Heard submissions of both sides. We find that Bill of Entry is one of the documents specified in Rule 57G on the strength of which Modvat credit can be taken. The basic issue is whether on endorsement of the Bill of Entry, the duty paying character of the Bill of Entry changes? It is not the case of respondents that duty paid under the Bill of Entry was refunded to them or duty was not paid on the Bill of Entry. There is no bar in endorsing the Bill of Entry stipulated in the Rules. The Bill of Entry in so far as the payment of duty is concerned remains a Bill of Entry and, therefore, is covered as a duty paying document under Rule 57G. We also note that the Tribunal had occasions to examine this issue and had held that Modvat credit of duty can be taken on the strength of endorsed Bill of Entry. Nothing has been brought to our notice that this decision of the Tribunal has been set aside by the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, having regard to the legal position as also the decision of the Tribunal cited and relied upon by the Appellant, we hold that Modvat credit can be taken on the strength of the endorsed Bill of Entry.
In the result, the Appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the Appellant in accordance with law.