2005 (98) ECC 412 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

New Delhi -- Bench-NB(S)

Shri K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)

Groz Backert Asia Ltd.

Versus

CCE, Chandigarh

Appeal No. E/2211/2004-NB(S)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 66/CE/CHD/2004 dated 30.1.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh]

Final Order No. 1318/2004-NB(S), dt. 22.9.2004, Certified on 11.10.2004

Modvat Credit

Difference in the quantity shown in the bill of entry and the invoice -- Since bill of entry is prescribed document for taking credit, therefore, the credit is to be taken on the quantity shown in the bill of entry and this view taken by the lower authorities was correct in law as no amendment was made in the bill of entry.

Appeal rejected

PRESENT :

Shri Sudeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri V. Valte, SDR for the respondent.

Per : K.C. Mamgain

Heard both sides.

2. Shri Sudeep Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants pleaded that the appellants have imported cold rolled high carbon non-alloy steel strip under the bill of entry Nos. 153578 dated 3.12.96 and 153579 dated 3.12.96 wherein there was a difference in the quantity of steel strip shown in the bill of entries and corresponding invoices. The difference in the quantity of the steel strips was 4832 kgs. and difference in the quantity of steel wire was 1572.10 kgs. This difference between these two documents was said to be received less in the factory. The appellants pleaded that earlier this case came before the Tribunal and vide their Order No. A/181-182/01-NB(S) dated 31.1.2001, the case was remanded to the original authority with direction that the appellants should make elaborate submissions before the original authority as to how a mistake had occurred in mentioning the quantities of the imported goods in the respective bills of entry and the lower authorities after considering the same should give their findings. The original authority in the de-novo order gave finding that since there are two different quantities shown in the bill of entry and the corresponding invoice and from the submissions made by the party it cannot be established that whether the quantity shown in the bills of entry is correct or the quantity shown in the invoice is correct and the party has not been able to prove that the quantities in the relevant bills of entries were shown wrong due to clerical mistake. Therefore, he confirmed the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the demand. Shri Sudeep Singh, learned Advocate again reiterated the same pleadings but he could not establish with any evidence that what was the actual quantity received in the factory as no amendment to the bill of entries was made. Shri Singh only states that the bill of entry was assessed as shown in the invoice.

3. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that if there was any mistake in the bill of entries by wrongly showing the quantity then it was necessary and obligatory for the appellants to get the bill of entries amended. Since no amendment was made, therefore, the quantity as per bill of entries has to be taken as correct quantity and that is the prescribed document for taking modvat credit.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and I find that the order passed by the lower authority is correct in law as no amendment was made in the bill of entry when there was a difference in the quantity shown in the bill of entry and the invoice. Since bill of entry is prescribed documents for taking credit, therefore, the credit is to be taken on the quantity shown in the bill of entry and this view was taken by the lower authorities. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in the appeal and the same is rejected.

…………………..