1995 (5) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... paid earlier to 31-3-1986. Because of this, the Superintendent of Central Excise who is the proper officer under Rule 57(I) ordered them to expunge the credits taken because of the reasons mentioned above. Appellants complied with the direction of the Supdt. but subsequently wrote a letter to the AC stating that they were entitled to provisions of Rule 57H(2). In the impugned order appealed against, the AC rejected their claim under Rule 57H(2). In consequence, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The plea of the appellants before the lower appellate authority was that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit for countervailing duty paid by the appellants in terms of Rule 57H(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t this late stage. Therefore, the present appeal is disposed of with the above grounds. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants pleaded that there is no dispute that the countervailing duty in respect of the goods for which Modvat credit was taken by the appellants was paid prior to 31-3-1986, the cut off date prescribed for the purpose of Modvat credit under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He fairly conceded that the appellants may not have a good case so far as the eligibility to Modvat credit is concerned. He however, pleaded that since the appellants had taken Modvat credit the same can be ordered to be reversed only within a period of six months. He pleaded that the appellants originally took the Modvat credit and t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the submissions made by both the sides. We observe that the appellants had earlier taken Modvat credit which the Supdt. felt was not available to them and asked them to reverse the same. The appellants thereafter reversed the Modvat credit and filed an application before the AC vide their letter dated 7-11-1987 for permission to take Modvat credit under Rule 57H(2) in respect of the inputs lying in stock before filing a declaration subject to the satisfaction of the other conditions set out in the rule. We observe that for granting permission to take Modvat credit under Rule 57H(2) only AC is the competent authority under the rule and the appellants' request was turned down vide his order dated 2-9-1988. The Supdt's direction under which t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X