Per Shri V.P. Gulati :

The prayer in the application is for dispensation of a pre-deposit of Rs. 85,910.96 demanded from the appellants for the reason that the MODVAT credit was taken in respect of goods which were not covered by a valid document for MODVAT purposes.

2. The learned Advocate for the appellants has pleaded that the goods had been imported and had been originally transacted for importation by M/s. Heerachand & Co., who sold the said goods to the appellants on Highseas basis. The Bill of Entry that was filed showed the importers' name as M/s. Heerachand & Co., on account M/s. Mayura Caps and Containers (P) Ltd. i.e. the appellants. He has pleaded, at the time of importation the appellants had been authorised to complete the formalities regarding the clearance of the goods. He has pleaded that the proceedings had been drawn in respect of 2 consignments, one importation by M/s. Heerachand & Co., and the other importation by M/s. Kawad Enterprises, both involving similar circumstances of importation. He has pleaded that the consignments in full had been received in the appellants factory from the Harbour under the cover of the Bills of Entry which had been processed in the Custom House. His plea is since the importation has been made on their account, although the goods were transacted for importation by others, the Bill of Entry should be taken to be a valid document for purposes of Rule 57G. He has pleaded that in that view of the matter, the demand is not sustainable in law.

3. The learned JDR for the department pleads that an authorisation should have been given to the appellants for importation of the goods and also the Bill of Entry should have been endorsed in the appellants name by the importers. His plea is that for the purpose of proceedings, if any, to be drawn under the Customs Act, it will be the original importer who has sold the goods on high seas basis who will be the concerned person before the authorities for the purpose. In that view of the matter he has pleaded that the Bill of Entry can be taken to be relatable only to the original importers and the mention of the 'on account' in the Bill of Entry where the appellant's name has been mentioned would not make any difference in law as to the status of the Bill of Entry.

4. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that the whole matter lies in a short campus and with the consent of both the sides, by dispensing with the pre-deposit, the appeal itself is taken for disposal.

5. We observe, in both the Bill of Entry the appellants name figure as the persons on whose account the importation had been made. Their full name and address had been given in the Bill of Entry. There is no contradiction regarding the sale of the goods on high seas basis. The goods have also as stated before us been received in full at the appellants factory under the cover of the Bill of Entry in question. The ownership of the goods by the appellants by reason of sale on the highseas is also not in dispute. The appellants also were concerned with effecting the clearance of the goods from the harbour and for carrying on the various formalities for the purpose of clearance of the goods through customs. In that view of the matter, we hold that the Bill of Entry can be related to the appellants as the owners of the goods who have effected the clearance from the harbour by reason of purchase of the goods on highseas basis. In such a circumstance, in our view, no further endorsement or a certificate would be required from the customs authorities or from the importer who transacted the importation originally for the purpose of taking the MODVAT credit. The Bill of Entry as such can be taken as valid documents in terms of Rule 57G for MODVAT purposes. We observe the documentation has been prescribed so as to ensure that the goods which were cleared from the harbour or from a factory are moved under the documents which can be connected with the importer or the manuf