9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27-6-1990 made in RG-23A Part-II Register. 3. The appellant filed its first declaration under the MODVAT Scheme i.e. under Rule 57G on 4-7-1986 i.e. soon after introduction of the scheme. This declaration, inter alia, covered Glass Bottles of various sizes; Gum; Adhesives; Caps; and Tapes. In this declaration, the finished product was shown, inter alia, as "Brahmi Amla Hair Oil" and "Jasmine Hair Oil", both classifiable under Heading and sub-heading 3305.10 of the Schedule to the CETA. 4. The entry under the above sub-heading No. 3305.10 (as it stood at the relevant time) read as under :- 33.05 Preparations for use on the hair, including brilliantines, perfumed hair oils, hair lotions, pomades and creams, hair dyes (in whatev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hole of duty leviable thereon. 8. In pursuance of the aforementioned letter, the learned Assistant Collector (as he was then known) granted permission under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, vide his letter dated 23-3-1990. In the said letter he categorically mentioned the quantity in stock for which the credit was granted. 9. On 19-6-1990, the appellant received a letter dated 18-6-1990 from the Assistant Commissioner by which the appellant was directed to reverse the aforesaid credit taken by the appellant. The following reason was given for the same :- "....as per Audit objection the credit granted was wrong and you were not entitled to take credit of Rs. 2,11,564/- under 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944....." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner therein had disallowed such credit taken on their own for the reason that the requisite records for establishing the stock of inputs had not been produced before him and the credit had been taken on their own. The Tribunal noted the appellants' plea that they had all the documents to show the stock position as on the critical date, and held that though their action in taking the Modvat credit on their own without waiting for the credit to be allowed under Rule 57H may invite penal liability, yet they cannot be denied the substantial benefit available under the Modvat Scheme, so long as it is established that the stock of inputs was lying on the relevant date and they utilised those inputs in the manufacture of dutiable final pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also admitted in the Assistant Commissioner's adjudication order. In such a context, and also considering that under the Modvat Scheme there is no requirement of one-to-one input output ratio, there was no justification even otherwise to include credit availed on this input in the demand. It is, therefore, held, in the facts of this case, and for the reasons aforesaid, that the appellants are eligible for the Modvat credit of Rs. 2,11,564/- which should accordingly be restored to them. In the above view of the matter taken on the merits of the case, we do not feel called upon to pronounce upon the contention raised before us on the competency of the Assistant Commissioner to modify his order passed under Rule 57H. The impugned order is acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
