M/S. AKZO NOBEL COATINGS (INDIA) LTD. Vs. CCE, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a perusal of the records and hearing both sides, I find that the short question to be considered in this case is whether the appellant can claim CENVAT credit of the additional duty of customs (CVD) paid on the capital goods received by them under the cover of a commercial invoice and an endorsed Bill of Entry issued by the importer of such goods. The capital goods were imported by one M/s. Donaldson India Filter Systems Pvt. Ltd. vide Bill of Entry No. 841242 dt. 01/01/2009. The Bill of Entry was endorsed in favour of the appellant and, on the basis of the endorsed document, the appellant took CENVAT credit of the CVD paid on the capital goods. In a show -cause notice dt. 06/01/2010 issued by the Department, the credit was sought to be denied on the ground that the endorsed Bill of Entry could not be considered as a valid document under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit. The appellant contested this demand by relying on case law. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand against the party and also demanded interest thereon. No penalty was imposed. The Order -in -Original was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals) in an appeal filed by the assessee. Hence the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has produced a commercial invoice dt. 05/01/2009 issued by the importer. But this document does not contain the essential particulars such as the amount of duty, description of the goods, the assessable value of the goods etc. and, therefore, the benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be claimed on the basis of this document. It is also seen that this document was not produced before the lower authorities.

(2.) THE learned counsel has argued that, though there is no specific provision for endorsement on a Bill of Entry, endorsed Bills of Entry have been accepted by this Tribunal, High Courts etc. as valid documents for availment of CENVAT credit. In this connection, reliance is placed on Marmagoa Steel Ltd. vs. UOI [2005(192) ELT 82 (Bom.)]. Per contra, the learned Additional Commissioner(AR) has relied on Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd. vs. Commissioner [2011(263) ELT A139 (Bom.)].