TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices. 3. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that there was a dispute on admissibility of credit on inputs namely HDPE bags during the period September, 1993 to March, 1994. The Tribunal vide Final Order dated 16-3-98 held that HDPE bags are inputs and credit is admissible. It was also held that though at that time, there was no period prescribed for availing Cenvat credit, a period of six months from the date of receipt of the inputs would be a reasonable period. The matter was remanded to verify whether any inputs have arrived in the appellant s factory during the said period. The de novo adjudication was completed vide Adjudication order dated 17-1-2000 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise. 4. After rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal in the case of Brakes India Ltd. (supra) held as under:- 6. In view of credit having been taken in RG23A, Part-I within six months from the date of input document, it cannot be said that availment was done irregularly. Therefore, the Commissioner s rejection of assessee s plea is not correct and is not in terms of Board s circular and the citation referred to. Therefore, the party s appeal is allowed. 7. The other Single Member Bench of Tribunal in the case of SPAC Tapioca Products (India) Ltd. (supra) held as under:- 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The learned Counsel has stressed the fact that, even though credit was availed beyond six months from the date of the relevant invoice, the inputs were ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the end of the matter. The Hon ble Supreme Court s ruling works against the appellants case. 5. In the result, the impugned order stands affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. 8. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. [2002 (142) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.)] (supra) the assessee had received their inputs for the manufacture of their respective products, had taken credit under the Modvat Scheme, admittedly, after six months from the date of issue of the documents specified in the said proviso to Rule 57G. The issue is to be decided whether the proviso to the Rule in question is applicable to the cases of manufacturer, who had received inputs prior to the introduction of the said proviso and are seeking to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat Rules substantively complied with. The other Single Member Bench in the case of SPAC Tapioca Products (India) Ltd. (supra) held that date on which inputs entered in RG-23A Part-I is irrelevant. As there is contrary decision of both the Single Member Benches, it is fit and proper to refer the matter before the Division Bench to decide the following questions of law :- Whether the time limit for taking the credit under Rule 57G of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 would be reckoned from the date of entry in RG-23A Part-II Register or from the date on which entry made in RG-23A Part-I Register? 11. Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon ble President for appropriate orders. (Order dictated and pronounc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
