TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides on 23-4-07 and on 24-4-07. 2. Shri J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants states that this appeal involves fourteen consignments all of which were received in the factory of the appellants before 29-6-95, the date on which Rule 57G was amended stipulating that the credit should be taken within six months of the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Khaitan states that even though the ratio of the said decision is against the appellants, in view of the subsequent insertion of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with retrospective effect, the appellants should be allowed credit of duty which was available to them without application of time-limit under the unamended Rule 57G, since the impugned goods were received prior to 29-6-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retrospective application of the amended Rule. In view of the fact that the Hon ble Supreme Court has pronounced its verdict on an exactly similar case and has held that the credit cannot be allowed under the amended Rule and has held such disallowance to be prospectively valid, the argument of Shri Khaitan that recourse can be taken to Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to grant benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
