Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Respondent Appearance: Shri P.C. Anand, Chartered Accountant For the Appellant Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) For the Respondent Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Date of hearing/decision :17.3.2015 FINAL ORDER No.40525/2015 The short issue in this appeal relates to denial of cenvat credit availed by the appellant of CVD paid on Jumbo Rolls of Cinematographic Film purchased from Customs auction/sale on T.R.6 challan. The adjudicating authority in his order dt. 14.11.2003 disallowed the credit and ordered for reversal of credit on the grounds that TR6 challan is not a specified document under Modvat/Cenvat Rules. The appellate authority upheld the order and rejected their appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Ld. Consultant Shri P.C. Anand submits that they purchased 59 Jumbo Rolls of Cinematographic Film from Customs auction carried out by Kandla Customs and paid the amount through T.R.6 challan to the Customs Treasury. Since they are not original importers and only purchased the Rolls for Customs auction there is no B/E in their name. The sale amount deposited to the Customs by T.R. 6 challan is inclusive of CVD. The adjudicating authority denied cenvat credit and held that T.R.6 challan is not a valid document for availing the cenvat credit. They have also submitted the certificate issued by the Appraiser, Kandla Customs before the lower authorities but it was considered. The Notification No.16/94CE (NT) dt. 30.3.94 specified the list of documents other than invoices for availing cenvat credit and Sl.No.10 & 11 of the above notification endorsed Gate Passes/Subsidiary GPs/Certificates. S.No.13 also permits subsidiary certificates issued by the Range Superintendent. Therefore, he pleaded that they have availed credit correctly. He relied on the following decisions : 1) CCE Jaipur Vs Wire & Fabrics SA Ltd. 1999 (107) ELT 790 (Tribunal) 2) CCE MumbaiII Vs Hindustan Composites Ltd. 2004 (175) ELT 404 (Tri.Mumbai) 3) Gabriel India ltd. Vs CCE 1993 (67) ELT 131 (Tribunal) 3. Ld. A.R reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He relied on Chaudhary Industries Vs UOI 2012 (281) ELT 216 (Guj.). 4. After hearing both sides, I find that the short issue that arises for consideration is whether CVD credit availed by the appellant on T.R.6 challan is a valid documents for availing the credit of CVD paid by the appellant on the Jumbo Rolls purchased through auction from Customs. The adjudicating authority has not disputed the payment of CVD on the said goods. The credit was denied only on the limited ground that T.R.6 challan is not a valid document. As rightly contended by appellant, Notification No.16/1994 (CE) clearly provides various documents and certificate issued by various agencies are treated as admissible documents for availing modvat credit under Rule 57G. It is pertinent to state that appellant being a PSU, Govt of India undertaking are engaged in the manufacture of photographic films and other photographic paper etc. During the relevant period, import of the jumbo rolls by an importer were absolutely confiscated by the Kandla Customs. Once confiscated, it becomes the property of Govt and the Customs authorities have to sell/dispose the same and appellant being the only PSU manufacturing photographic films, it has to be necessarily given to the appellants unit. There is no dispute on the sale and the purchase of entire cinematographic film and the appellants paid the amount as per the price arrived by the Customs which is inclusive of customs duty (CVD). As evident from the T.R.6 challan enclosed at page 26 of appeal paper, the appellant paid an amount of Rs.48,50,000/ which clearly shows that appellant had paid the amount towards purchase of above goods. There is also an endorsement on the TR6 challan which reads as : CVD paid @ Rs.24/ per sq. mtr. and total CVD is Rs.19,26,282.90". This is supported by a certificate duly issued by the AC of Customs, Kandla vide F.No.VIII/6(a)5/89appg. dt. 10.9.1990 and it is clearly certified that the price of the Jumbo rolls includes CVD duty leviable on the goods. In view of the above facts, appellant had paid duty through TR6 challan which is duly supported by the certificate issued by Kandla Customs. I rely Tribunals decision in the case of CCE Mumbai Vs Hindustan Corporation (supra) wherein the Tribunal held that TR.6 challan being primary document of evidence for