TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CETA. This Notification was amended on 1-3-2000 and, consequently, Modvat credit of Special Excise Duty could be taken only on certain specified goods w.e.f. the said date. Goods falling under Chapter 21 were not so specified. As the appellants continued to take Modvat credit of Special Excise Duty on their inputs falling under Chapter 21 in March, 2000, the department by show cause notice proposed to disallow the credit. The proposal was contested. The original authority upheld the department s stand and disallowed to the party Modvat credit of Rs. 3,60,967/- taken in respect of their input Concentrate on the basis of two invoices, one dated 28-2-2000 and the other dated 12-3-2000. That authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. v. C.B.E. C., New Delhi [2004 (163) E.L.T. 10 (Kar.)]. 3. Ld. DR submits that, in the case of Eicher Motors, the issue related to Rule 57F rather than to Rule 57A and, therefore, the Apex Court s ruling may not be applicable to the instant case involving Rule 57A. DR reiterates the argument with reference to Samtel India (supra) which followed Eicher Motors (supra). Referring to the facts of the case, ld. DR submits that, even on the basis of the case law cited by the ld. Counsel, the credit taken by the assessee on the strength of invoice dated 12-3-2000 would not be admissible to them inasmuch as the duty on the input covered by that invoice was paid after 1-3-2000. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its manufacturer to the appellants under cover of invoice dated 28-2-2000 accrued to the latter on 28-2-2000 itself and such right continued until the Modvat facility in respect thereof got worked out. The facility would work out only with the availment of credit for payment of duty on final product. As the amending Notification dated 1-3-2000 did not provide for retrospective operation, the above right did accrue to the party on 28-2-2000 and, by virtue of the Apex Court s ruling, subsisted beyond that date till it was extinguished on the date of availment of the credit. Therefore, in respect of special excise duty on the input received by the appellants under cover of invoice dated 28-2-2000, I am of the view that the credit is admissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
