Vfc Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. for reasons recorded below, i waive the pre-deposit of rs. 90,623 confirmed as a result of denial of modvat credit and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides. credit has been denied on the ground that it was taken on the strength of quadruplicate copy of bill of entry which is not the valid duty paying document for availing modvat credit. the assessee explained that due to loss of triplicate copy of bill of entry they could take it only on the strength of quadruplicate copy of bill of entry which shows cvd on the goods imported and also submits that they are willing to execute indemnity bond to protect the revenue in the event of utilisation of the triplicate copy of the bill of entry by some other person for the purpose of availment of credit.2. on hearing both sides, i find that in similar situation, in the case of industrial cables (i) ltd. v. cce, chandigarh [1997(94)elt 379 (tri)], the tribunal has extended credit taken on the strength of quadruplicate copy of bill of entry when the triplicate copy of bill of entry was lost. the tribunal directed furnishing an indemnity bond to protect the revenue. a similar view was taken in the case of reconstructed copy of bill of entry as seen in the case of klockner supreme pentaplast ltd. v. cce, indore [1999 (114) elt 253]. in the light of the ratio of the above decisions, i hold that the credit of the amount in question is available to the appellants on the strength of the quadruplicate copy of bill of entry, subject to the appellants furnishing the indemnity bond for the entire amount.3. the appeal is allowed as above, after setting aside the impugned order.

Judgment:
1. For reasons recorded below, I waive the pre-deposit of Rs. 90,623 confirmed as a result of denial of modvat credit and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides. Credit has been denied on the ground that it was taken on the strength of quadruplicate copy of Bill of Entry which is not the valid duty paying document for availing modvat credit. The assessee explained that due to loss of triplicate copy of Bill of Entry they could take it only on the strength of quadruplicate copy of bill of entry which shows CVD on the goods imported and also submits that they are willing to execute indemnity bond to protect the Revenue in the event of utilisation of the triplicate copy of the bill of entry by some other person for the purpose of availment of credit.

2. On hearing both sides, I find that in similar situation, in the case of Industrial Cables (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [1997(94)ELT 379 (Tri)], the tribunal has extended credit taken on the strength of quadruplicate copy of bill of entry when the triplicate copy of bill of entry was lost. The tribunal directed furnishing an indemnity bond to protect the Revenue. A similar view was taken in the case of reconstructed copy of bill of entry as seen in the case of Klockner Supreme Pentaplast Ltd. v. CCE, Indore [1999 (114) ELT 253]. In the light of the ratio of the above decisions, I hold that the credit of the amount in question is available to the appellants on the strength of the quadruplicate copy of bill of entry, subject to the appellants furnishing the indemnity bond for the entire amount.

3. The appeal is allowed as above, after setting aside the impugned order.