2004 (96) ECC 572 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

New Delhi -- Bench-NB(B)

Shri V.K. Agrawal, Member (T) and Shri P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

CCE, Ahmedabad

Appeal No. E-1129/04-B

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 333/2003 (333-A/II)/CE/Commr(A.III) dated 22.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ahmedabad]

Final Order No. 766/04-B, dated 26.8.2004, Certified on 4.10.2004

Modvat Credit

Appellants availed credit in their RG 23-A Part II of the strength of bill of entry No. 2366 dated 7.6.99 on 2.7.91 without producing the same for defacement before the Competent Authority -- But admittedly they could not legally take the modvat credit without submitting the same for defacement. Their plea that the bill of entry was submitted by them to the customs authorities at Bombay alongwith the claim of refund of duty, cannot be accepted for want of evidence to substantiate the same. It was their duty to produce the bill of entry on the basis of which, they took the modvat credit, for defacement. For having failed to do so, they have been rightly denied the modvat credit.

Appeal dismissed

PRESENT :

Smt. Rani Raghwan, Adv. for the appellant.

Smt. C. Baranwal, DR for the respondent.

Per : P.S. Bajaj

In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the denial of modvat credit of Rs. 1,95,500 on the strength of Bill of Entry No. 2366 dated 7.6.99 not produced before the competent authority alongwith their monthly RT 12 returns, for the months of July, 1999.

We have heard both the sides. We find from the record that the appellants availed credit of the above said amount in their RG 23-A Part II of the strength of bill of entry No. 2366 dated 7.6.99 on 2.7.91 without producing the same for defacement before the Competent Authority, for the month of July, 1999. But admittedly they could not legally take the modvat credit without submitting the same for defacement. Their plea that the bill of entry was submitted by them to the customs authorities at Bombay alongwith the claim of refund of duty, cannot be accepted for want of evidence to substantiate the same. It was their duty to produce the bill of entry on the basis of which, they took the modvat credit, for defacement. For having failed to do so, they have been rightly denied the modvat credit and we do not find any illegality in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and as such, the same is upheld. Consequently, the appeal of the appellants is dismissed.

……………………..