9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They were also availing the credit of duty under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was alleged that they had removed 12,188.6 kgs., of polyester staple fibre as such on which credit of duty had been taken to the other mills without expunging the credit of duty on the fibre. It was also alleged that they had used the credit of Rs. 51,374/- out of the credit taken on the polyester staple fibres received prior to 16-3-1995 for payment of duty on 11.984 kgs., of cotton yarn. It was further alleged that they had accounted for 413 kgs., of polyester staple fibre, even though the same was not actually received in their factory. By the above impugned order the lower authority disallowed the credit of Rs. 2,92,722/- and also imposed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods of tractors, motors vehicles and motor vehicles for transport of goods. Hence it was very clear that the credit of duty of any other goods failing under any other Chapter could very well be effected, the payment of duty even after 16-3-1995. As regards non accounting of 413 kgs., of Polyester staple fibre they submitted that they had received polyester fibre weighing 4120 kgs. and issued the entire quantity to M/s. Om Parasakthi Mills for conversion of yarn, but the said mill had converted only 3707 kgs., of Polyester staple fibre into yarn leaving 413 kgs., un-processed and requested the appellant to send a invoice for effecting clearance of 413 kgs., of Polyester staple fibre so that the processor factory could take the Modvat c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also in the case of National Engg. Industries Ltd., [1996 (88) E.L.T. 62]. In the case of Hindustan Wire Products Ltd., [1995 (76) E.L.T. 377] the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the substantive benefit should not be denied for non-compliance of procedural requirement of Rule 57F(2). Relying on the ratio of the above orders of the Tribunal, I hold that denial of Modvat credit by the lower authority was not correct in law. However from the facts of the case it is not clear whether Polyester staple fibre yarn manufactured out of 12188.6 kgs., of fibre has been received back or not and whether proper duty of excise was paid? Appellants are therefore, liable to pay the duty on the said quantity of yarn manufactured out of 12,188.6 kgs., of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tilisation of such credit if the inputs have been received prior to 16-3-1995. In the instant case they had utilised the credit of Rs. 15,374/- in respect of Polyester Staple fibre received prior to 16-3-1995 and therefore, the same is not covered under the above provisions. The appellant had therefore, wrongly availed the credit of duty. Similarly the sub-rule 4(A) is not applicable to the appellant as it applied only to the manufacturers of tractors, motor vehicles and not to any other manufacturers. 5. Regarding receipt of 413 kgs., of Polyester staple fibre, the appellant has explained their position and I agree with the submissions made by the appellant in this regard. 6. In view of the above, the appeal is partially allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
