9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order-in-original dated 12-11-1987 passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana Division disallowing transfer of credit amounting to Rs. 2,77,353.84 from their R.G. 23 Pt. II account, not accepting their plea that since such transfer had already been allowed the same could not be redecided. She had stated in her order that the Assistant Collector had rightly observed that though the appellants had argued that they had a balance of Rs. 47,014.95 out of the amount of Rs. 2,77,353.84 and not of the amount related to inputs received after 1-3-1986, they had not been able to substantiate as to how much amount was utilised after payment of duty out of the balance said to be available as on 1-3-1986 when they were availing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee to debit Rs. 2,77,353.84 BED which has been transferred to RG-23A Part II mentioned under Rule 57A from RG-23 Part II mentioned under Rule 56A in their accounts immediately as transfer of amount of balance has been wrongly granted by the competent authority for passing fresh orders. Further the assessee is advised to debit amount of credit of duty taken in respect of graphite electrodes and its parts in their account immediately as these have not been considered inputs and credit of duty is not allowable. The compliance report should be reported to the R.O. immediately." They debited the amount in compliance with the instructions and submitted a representation to the Assistant Collector. He disallowed the transfer of credit under h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iples of natural justice. I, therefore remand back this case to Assistant Collector concerned for de novo considerations after issue of a show cause notice and granting personal hearing to the appellants." On such remand, the Assistant Collector issued show cause notice and, after their reply and personal hearing, reviewed the previous permission granted for the transfer of credit and disallowed the same. Their appeal to the Collector (Appeals) against the Assistant Collector's said order was rejected as already indicated above in para 1 supra. 3. In the present appeal, it has been contended that the Collector (Appeals) had originally only set aside the Assistant Collector's letter dated 29-1-1987 for passing appealable order after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding the transfer of unutilised credit balance under any notification giving credit of duty to RG 23A Part II provided the inputs and final products are specified under Modvat scheme in Notification 177/86. Rule 57H(3) had been referred to therein. He reiterated the plea made in the appeal for setting aside the impugned order and grant of consequential relief to them. 5. Shri J.P. Singh, learned Departmental Representative replied to the arguments advanced by the learned Consultant. He supported the order under appeal and pleaded that the same be upheld and the appeal dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the record. We find that the main thrust in the appeal is that the appellants had been granted p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We find there is a factual inaccuracy as well as an error of interpretation of Rule 57H in the findings of the Assistant Collector. He has observed in his order that they had opted for availing Modvat on 1-4-1986. We, however, find that they had applied vide their letter of 29th March, 1986 which appears to have the receiving officers initials dated 31-3-1986 wherein they had requested the Assistant Collector, Ludhiana to permit them to transfer the credit balance lying in RG-23 Part II to RG-23A Part II required to be main- tained by them for availing the procedure under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. They had stated that this has been specifically permitted under Rule 57H(3) of the said Rules. The Assistant Collector's finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 86 of Rs. 47,014.95 (B.E.D.) and Rs. 23,708.77 (S.E.D.). They took credit of Rs. 2,30,338.89 in March 1986 and the closing balance as on 31-3-1986 was Rs. 2,77,353.84 B.E.D. and Rs. 23,708.77 S.E.D. In terms of Rule 57H(3), transfer of credit from RG 23 Part II account to RG 23A Part II account is limited to the credit lying unutilised before the commencement of Central Excise (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 1986. These rules contained the necessary provisions for the introduction of Modvat scheme. Thus, under Rule 57(3), only the RG 23 Part II balance of credit lying unutilised before the introduction of Modvat scheme on 1-3-1986 was eligible for the transfer to RG 23A Part II account. Subject to verification of the data given by them with refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
