KOME STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELAPUR
LAWS(CE)-2015-1-154
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 23,2015

Kome Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of C. Ex., Belapur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)P.K. Jain, Member (T)
(2.)BRIEF facts of the case are that one P.K. Trading Co. imported certain wire rods. These were transferred to the appellant for reducing the thickness of such wire rods. Since the bill of entry was not in the name of the appellant and there was no invoice from P.K. Trading Co. to the appellant and there was no entry in RG -23 Part I register, it was proposed to deny the credit taken on the said goods. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that they have written to the Appraising Officer that the said goods will be transferred to their unit in Taloja at the time of import itself and the said letter has been received by the Appraising Officer. It can be seen that the bill of entry has been assessed by the same Appraising Officer. He further submits that they have paid more duty on the final product as is evident from various invoices produced by them in the appeal memorandum. He further submits that the CHA (licence No. 11/900) vide their letter dated 20 -10 -2005 had given the details of the goods' movement. It will be seen that the bill of entry date tallies. They have paid the duty on 19th October. The goods thereafter moved in vehicle No. DD03 A9902. They have also produced the copy of the weighment slip from a weigh bridge in Taloja, which indicates the same vehicle number and weight etc. He further submits that the entries were made in the RG -23 Part II register on 22nd October. In view of the said position, it cannot be disputed that the inputs were not received in their factory and used in the manufacture of finished products which were cleared on payment of duty.
Learned AR, on the other hand, stated that there is no endorsement on the bill of entry. Moreover, P.K. Trading being the registered dealer should have issued an invoice in the name of the appellant which has not been done in this case. Moreover, there is no entry in the RG -23 Part I register and under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the goods were received in the appellant's factory and the appeal merits rejection. I have considered the submissions and also gone through the various documents submitted. I find that the bill of entry was filed on 15 -10 -2005. The duty payment was made on 19 -10 -2005. The documents of the CHA indicate that on 20 -10 -2005 the goods moved through vehicle No. DD03 A9902 which had reached the weigh bridge in Taloja which is near to the factory and, they have also produced the payment details to the weigh bridge, which includes number of consignments received by them. The invoices produced by the appellant indicate that the finished products were cleared on payment of duty. Thus, over all it appears that there are some procedural irregularities. However, from the document it is established that the goods were received by the appellant and were used in the manufacturing process and the finished goods were cleared on payment of duty. Under the circumstances, I do not find any reason to deny the Cenvat credit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

(Operative part pronounced in Court)

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.