1 cexa56-06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.56 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – III, 3rd Floor, Vardaan Trade Centre, W.I.E., Thane – 400 604 ..Appellant. Versus Ms.Western Ministil Limited, L.B.S. Marg, Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400 080 ..Respondent. Mr.R.B. Pardeshi for the appellant. Mr.P.V. Patankar with Mr.P.P. Patankar for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.M. Savant, JJ. DATE : 24th November, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. This appeal was admitted on 7th June 2006 on the following substantial questions of law. a) Whether the assessee is entitled for the credit on the strength of endorsed bill of entry, as per the Rule applicable therein, when there is no high Sea sales / purchase for the 2 cexa56-06 relevant time ? b) Whether Notification No.16/94 (NT) dated 30-3-1994 is applicable in the instant case as Notification NO.16/94 (NT) dated 30-3-1994 is of a clarificatory nature since it covers all circulars from 1986 to 1990 covering the period 1980 to 1990 ? c) Whether the endorsed bill of entry can be accepted as duty paying document for Modvat Credit ? 2. The basic dispute raised by the Revenue in this appeal is, whether the Cenvat credit can be availed on an endorsed bill of entry ? Relying upon the Trade Notice No.57/1987 dated 7th August 1997, it is contended by the Revenue that the Cenvat credit cannot be allowed on the strength of an endorsed bill of entry. 3. In the present case, it is not in dispute and in fact counsel for the Revenue fairly stated that the inputs received by the assessee were duty paid inputs and that the said inputs have been actually used by the assessee in the manufacture of the final products. This Court in the case of Marmagoa Steel Limited V/s. Union of India reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T. 82 (Bom.) has held that where the duty paid inputs are actually used in the manufacture of dutiable final products, then credit of duty paid on inputs cannot be denied even if there is no endorsement of the bill of entry in favour of the assessee. 4. In the present case, the bill of entry is endorsed in favour of the assessee and there is nothing on record to suggest that the original bill of 3 cexa56-06 entry holder has availed the credit of duty. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal in allowing the claim of the assessee cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.M. Savant, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)