Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 544 - AT - Central ExciseMODVAT Credit Claim - whether the mistake committed by the assessee in not reflecting the quantum of credit in RG 23A part II register would disentitle them from the benefit of credit of duty paid on the inputs, especially when the entries has been made in RG 23A Part I record within six months - Held that:- Appellant received the imported inputs during the period 15.11.94 to 20.1.95 accompanied with Bills of Entry and duly recorded in their RG 23A Part -I register. There is a delay in taking the credit in the RG 23A Part - II register which they have done in the month of August and September 1995 - assessee received the inputs during the period May to September 1999 and credit was availed in March 2000. Appellants want us to interpret the rule to mean that the rule in question is not applicable in regard to credits acquired by a manufacturer prior to the coming into force of the rule. This we find it difficult because in our opinion the language of the proviso concerned is unambiguous. It specifically states that a manufacturer cannot take credit after six months from the date of issue of any of the documents specified in the first proviso to the said sub-rule. A plain reading of this sub-rule clearly shows that it applies to those cases where a manufacturer is seeking to take the credit after the introduction of the rule and to cases where the manufacturer is seeking to do so after a period of six months from the date when the manufacturer received the inputs. This sub-rule does not operate retrospectively in the sense it does not cancel the credits nor does it in any manner affect the rights of those persons who have already taken the credit before coming into force of the rule in question. It operates prospectively in regard to those manufacturers who seek to take credit after the coming into force of this rule - Therefore Tribunal was justified in holding that the rule in question only restricts a right of a manufacturer to take the credit beyond the stipulated period of six months under the rule - Following decision in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-III Versus FORD INDIA LTD. [2013 (9) TMI 20 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] and Osram Surya (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE [2002 (5) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee.
|