Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (11) TMI 247

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se duty leviable on inputs used in relation to the manufacture of hook and loop tape fasteners viz. LDO. They availed Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on light diesel oil used in the production of the above mentioned final products and such availment was contrary to the conditions stipulated in paragraph 4 of Notification 29/96 (deemed credit notification) which provided that the provisions of the deemed credit notification shall not apply to manufacturer (other than composite mill) who avails any credit under any notification issued under Rule 57A(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of the said final products. On this basis the Department was of the view that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xcise Rules in respect of the said inputs and the said inputs are used in the manufacture of the said final products. The appellants took actual credit under a notification issued in terms of Rule 57A(1) on LDO which was used in the manufacture of hook and loop tape fasteners i.e., narrow woven fabrics falling under CETA sub-heading 5806.10 which heading is specified under Notification 29/96. The contention of the appellants that deemed credit can be denied only if actual credit has been taken on consumables such as LDO which are not only used in the said final products but also contained therein and identifiable therein, is not tenable in the face of the language of Notification 29/96-C.E. wherein denial of deemed credit is not so restrict .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e in the final product by virtue of the fact that it has got consumed, does not advance the case of the appellants. 3. The appellants' contention that LDO used, as fuel is not a consumable covered by Notification 29/96 cannot also be accepted as the notification use the expression "consumables" which includes fuel and fuel has not been specifically excluded. 4. The next contention of the appellants is that although credit was taken on LDO it was not used/availed for payment of duty on woven fabrics falling under CETA sub-heading 5806.10 which is a notified final product, but was utilised for payment of duty on knitted fabrics falling under CETA sub-heading 6002.10 which is excluded from the coverage of final products under the notificat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... otification 29/96 is not relevant. 5. The appellants' plea that actual credit was taken on LDO in terms of Rule 57B and not Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules and therefore they are not hit by the bar in Para 4 of Notification 29/96 is also not acceptable, as the declaration filed by the appellants for taking credit on LDO was filed in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. 6. We therefore hold that deemed credit facility under Notification 29/96 is not available to the appellants. 7. However, we see force in the submission that since credit taken on LDO for the period December, 1999 to March, 2000 covered under show cause notice dated 6-12-2000 was reversed on 4-12-2000 as seen from the letter dated 8-12-2000, deemed credit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 60 and therefore they are two independent declarations and the earlier declaration does not get superseded by the later one. Since the fact of availment of credit on LDO used in the manufacture of woven fabrics was declared in 1994 itself, the appellants cannot be held guilty of suppression of their availment of actual credit. We therefore agree with the appellants that the demand for the period December, 1998 to October, 1999 is time-barred. This is also for the reason that in Rule, 57G declaration filed on 14-12-1994 the appellants had clearly shown LDO as an input in the manufacture of woven fabrics of Chapter 58 (final product) and there is no dispute thereon and in view of the fact that extracts of RG 23A Parts I and II maintained for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates