9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the CETA, 1985 and they are also availing Modvat credit on the inputs under Rule 57A and on capital goods under Rule 57Q. The appellants have taken credit on Rule 57E certificate during the period prior to December, 1996 and January, 1997. The contention of the department was that if the credit had been taken before 16-3-95, then the same would have lapsed in terms of erstwhile Rule 57F(4A) [now 57F(17)]. In this case, the appellants had availed the credit on 57E certificate received from the manufacturer for the goods received prior to 16-3-1995 on which they have availed the credit before 16-3-1995 and therefore on 16-3-95, the credit available in RG 23A P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Serial Nos. 1 to 94 of Annexure 1 to the show cause notice for Rs. 19,84,476/- and differential duty @ 5% on certain items amounting to Rs. 56,115/- After consideration of their submissions, the Assistant Commissioner partly allowed credit on several counts but disallowed input credit totally of Rs. 7,37,707/-. Aggrieved by the said order of the original authority they filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who after careful consideration of their submissions noted that the short question involved for consideration was whether the disallowance of input credit can be sustained in law or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given detailed order in Paras 3 to 10 which are reproduced herein below : "3. I have given my careful cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same in the total disallowed credit. 5. As regards the first issue i.e. denial of credit pertaining to Sl. Nos. 2 and 15 of the Annexure, on account of technical lapse such as over writing in the invoices relating to the date of issue/removal, the appellants have filed necessary affidavits from the suppliers, namely M/s. Luman Autolite Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and M/s. Bharat Forge Ltd., Pune certifying the genuineness of the corrections. I, therefore direct the Assistant Commissioner to extend the credit after necessary verification. 6. Regarding Sl. No. 5, 6 and 7 of the Annexure, it is seen that the credit has been disallowed on the ground that the 57J challans having cross-reference to respective invoices were not produced. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against them - vide Order-in-Appeal No. 104/99(M-III), dated 31-5-99 - and admitted that credit would not be available to them. The relevant portion of my order is extracted below : "6. The third group in the Annexure to show cause notice covers Sl. Nos. 18 to 21 wherein the reason given for disallowance of credit was that the credit was taken under Rule 57E certificate for goods received in the factory before 16-3-95 and that if differential duty had been taken as credit before 16-3-95, the amount would have lapsed as per Rule 57F(17). To this, the appellants have stated that they received the inputs from different manufacturers prior to 16-3-95, on which credit was availed and that on 16-3-95, credit standing to their balance lapsed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the appellants' plea as seen from the penultimate para at the bottom of page 4 of the order. I, therefore direct the Assistant Commissioner to carry out necessary rectification in this regard. The appeal on this count is therefore allowed. 10. Coming to Sl. Nos. 82 to 93 of the Annexure, credit has been denied mainly on the ground that the credits were taken after six months from the date of issue of documents. The appellants have explained that the inputs were no doubt received after sixty days but have sought allowing the credit based on the recent CEGAT decision in the case of UP Twiga Fibre Glass Limited v. CCE, Meerut reported in 1998 (28) RLT 858 (CEGAT). In the cited decision it has been held that the credit should not be di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Counsel confined his argument only in respect of Rule 57E in both these appeals. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the appeals. The plea of the learned Counsel was that fresh duty was paid after 16-3-95 and 57E certificate was issued by the Supdt. in respect of this amount and therefore they are claiming Modvat credit of this amount. We do not find any evidence on record that fresh duty was paid after 16-3-95. The Supdt. of Central Excise had issued certificate under Rule 57E for the Modvat credit which has been expunged/lapsed and not for any amount paid after 16-3-95 as duty. From the grounds of appeal also we find that the appellants has submitted that credit in any case had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
