9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and was having a balance of Rs. 8,34,986.55 as BED and Rs. 3,519.33 as SED as on 1-3-1986 in the RG-23 Part II being maintained by them under Rule 56A. They filed their declaration opting for Modvat under Rule 57A on 12-3-1986 and from 1-3-1986 to 12-3-1986 and took the credit of Rs. 6,46,950.00. It is alleged by the Department that they had, before filing the declaration, a balance of Rs. 14,81,938.55 as BED and Rs. 3,519.33 as SED in RG 23 Part II. It is alleged that as per Rule 57H(3), this amount of credit lying unutilised could have been transferred to the RG-23A Part II account maintained under Rule 57A, after the same was allowed to be transferred by the Jurisdictional Asstt. Collector. Further, it is alleged that they had transferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermission could be granted post facto. Therefore, they had availed the benefit and the same had not been objected to by the Departmental Official on regular audits. In October, 1986, while finalising the assessment relating to May, 1986, the Department had taken the objection and therefore, they had debited the entries. They have stated that as no communication of the Department was received even after the lapse of 6 months from the date of original claim for credit under Rule 57H, therefore, they had again availed the credit in November, 1986. This credit had again been objected to by the Department in April, 1987 while the return for October, 1986 was finalised. Therefore, they had debited the amount. They have stated that the Asstt. Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st them is also very meagre. Therefore, he submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and same is required to be rejected. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made in the appeal memo and have also gone through the records. There is no dispute in this matter about the availing of the proforma credit before the permission is granted by the Asstt. Collector. This violation of the rule had been committed twice by the appellant and it was only after the Department took objection for such availing of the credit without permission, that they had reversed the same. The plea taken by the appellant that they had filed their claim and the same had not been considered for a long time and that they were told to transfer the credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
