CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I Excise Appeal No. 30509 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.HYD-EXCUS-001-COM-053-16-17 dated 16.01.2017 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad)

M/s Vantech Chemicals Ltd., .. APPELLANT Unit-I SY No.180/6 & 7, I D A Kazipally, Gaddapotharam Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, Telangana – 502 319.

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax .. RESPONDENT Medchal - GST Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 004.

APPEARANCE:

Shri Lalit Mohan Chandna, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri B. Subash Chandra Bose, Authorized Representative for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No. A/30096/2026 Date of Hearing: 19.01.2026 Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 [ORDER PER: A.K. JYOTISHI]

M/s Vantech Chemicals Ltd., Unit – I (hereinafter referred to as appellant) are in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 16.01.2017, whereby, the Show Cause Notice dated 04.11.2016 has been decided and the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed demand of Rs. 2,44,07,004/- on the grounds of taking and utilising irregular credit by the appellant. A penalty of Rs. 1,22,03,502/- has also been imposed by the Adjudicating Authority (impugned order).

2. The issue, in brief, is that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing insecticides, on job work basis, for Coromandel International Ltd., (CIL). The Department noticed that the appellant had availed credit on certain Bill of Entries (BoEs) which were not in their name but were in the name of CIL, Chennai and availment of credit against such BoEs by the appellant appeared to be irregular and in contravention of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). On further clarification by the appellant that the credit was taken by them on the basis of endorsement made in their favour by CIL and duly signed by CIL, the Department felt that as per Bill of Entry, the importer was CIL and the inputs were received by the appellant under the cover of endorsed BoEs as well as Form – JJ (Delivery Note for sales/ stock transfer/ works contract/labour) with the appellant named as consignee and CIL as consignor. The Department examined the scope of Rule 9, which provides for certain specified documents on the strength of which credit can be taken and noted that “endorsed Bills of Entry” is not one of the specified documents for the purpose of taking Cenvat Credit.

3. The Adjudicating Authority has examined the submission of the appellant, including some of the case laws cited by them in support that they are entitled for taking credit on the strength of endorsed Bills of Entry. The reliance placed by the appellant on the case of Akzo Noble Coating (India) Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2013 (290) E.L.T. 108 (Tri-Bang)] wherein, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Marmagoa Steel Ltd., Vs Union of India [2005 (192) E.L.T. 82 (Bom.)], was distinguished. The reliance placed by the appellant on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Marmagoa Steel Ltd., [2008 (229) E.L.T. 481 (SC)], was also distinguished by holding that the issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court in appeal was not one of admissibility of MODVAT credit on the basis of an endorsed Bills of Entry. The view of the Adjudicating Authority was that the Hon’ble Supreme Court essentially endorsed the legal position that the provision relating to specific documents evidencing duty payment (in that case the Bills of Entry) was a mandatory requirement for availing MODVAT credits. He also held that the said judgment was in the context of Rule 57G of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944, wherein, the Bills of Entry was also one of the valid documents and the fact that the CBEC Circular No. 96/7/95-CX dated 13.02.1995 recognize