TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecified documents. Further, sub-rule (5) specifically provides that credit shall not be taken by the manufacturer after six months of the date of issue of any document specified in sub-rule (3). The said sub-rule is very clear and prohibits the manufacturer to take credit after six months from the date of issue of the specified document. In the present case, there is no dispute that the credit has been taken after six months from the date of issue of the specified document and even the goods have been received in the factory on 21.03.1996, which is again more than six months as specified in the said sub-rule - Following decision of MRP Ltd. vs. CCE, Mangalore [2006 (11) TMI 231 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - while confirming the demand, penalty wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (5) Credit shall also not be taken by the manufacturer after six months of the date of issue of any document specified in sub-rule (3) and where the intermediate products manufactured by the user of inputs specified under rule 57are received by the manufacturer, after nine months. 3.1 The above mentioned time restriction was imposed in the Budget of 1995. The issue whether the time limit of six months would be applicable even for the consignment which had arrived before the introduction of the said Rule came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore, reported in 2002(142)ELT 5(SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 7 observed as under:- 7. Having heard the arguments of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the right to credit itself was taken away, whereas in the instant case by the introduction of the second proviso to Rule 57G, the credit in the account of a manufacturer was not taken away but only the manner and the time within which the said credit was to be taken or utilized alone was stipulated. It is to be noted at this juncture that the substantive right has not been taken away by the introduction of the proviso to the rule in question but a procedural restriction was introduced which, in our opinion, is permissible in law. Therefore, in our opinion, the law laid down by this Court in Eicher's case (supra) does not apply to the facts of these cases. This is also the position with regard to the judgment of this Court in Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no separate definition of bill of entry under the Central Excise Act or any rules framed thereunder and, therefore, any reference to this document under the said Act or Rules is a reference to the document as defined under Section 2(4) of the Customs Act]. These provisions have got to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the provisions of Sections 46 and 47 of the Customs Act. We have already examined the provisions of Section 47 earlier in this order and the same provides for return of assessed bill of entry by the proper officer of customs to the importer to be used and retained by the latter. In a harmonious construction of the provisions, the word 'issue' used in the time-bar provision viz. sub-rule 5 of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under cover of any other document. On the other hand, it is reasonably presumable that the rule-making authority has made the delegated legislation so as to sub serve the parent statute made by Parliament. Therefore, in our view, any interpretation of sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G and clauses (c) and (k) of sub-rule (3) of the said Rule, different from what we have given, has to be rejected as it would get no support from the statutory provisions viz. Sections 46 and 47 ibid. The Larger Bench also further observed in para 8 as under:- 8. In the above view of the matter, we overrule the view taken by the learned single Members in the cases of Bullows Paint Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and by the Division Bench in the case of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... followed by the appellants and duly endorsed bills of entry were received by them in the first week of October 1999 and subsequently modvat credit was availed by them. 4.2 In the present case, there are no such facts. It is admitted fact that the bill of entry is dated 10.2.1995 and the goods were received in the Bhandara factory on 21.03.1996 and credit was taken on 28.03.1996, which are all beyond the period of six months. 5. The learned counsel has also quoted another judgment of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chennai-III vs. Ford India Ltd. reported in 2012(284)ELT 202(Tri-Chennai), wherein the Tribunal has taken the view that the time limit of six months in availing the credit has been introduced with the sole objective of avo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
