TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ix months period was permissible or not - Held that:- An assessee would be entitled to take the credit even after a period of six months - the time-limit of six months in availing the credit had been introduced with the sole objective of avoiding the evil of taking the credit in respect of inputs which had been cleared by the input manufacturer more than six months back - Relying upon COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD Versus AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. [2000 (10) TMI 93 - CEGAT, CHENNAI] - The said provision cannot be pressed into service to deny the otherwise available substantive benefit of credit, to an assessee who had received the goods within the period of six months from the date of clearance from the input manufacturer’s factory and has duly made entries in RG-23A Part-I record - ultimately the period of six months introduced in the said rule was withdrawn by the legislature with effect from 1-4-2000 - There were no merits in the Revenue’s appeal and reject the appeal. - E/689/2003 - 509/2012 - Dated:- 8-5-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Appellant. Shri Sri Prakash, Advocate, for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is clear from the opening paragraph of the said judgment. He submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court was deciding a bunch of appeals involving an issue as to whether after the introduction of proviso to Rule 57G, a manufacturer can take the credit after six months from the date of issuance of duty paying documents specified in the first proviso to Rule 57G of the Rules in respect of inputs received prior to the said date. The said issue was answered by the Hon ble Supreme Court against the assessee. He clarifies that the issue as to whether once the inputs has been received and stands reflected in RG-23A Part I, within a period of six months, whether credit can be disallowed on the ground that entry in RG-23A Part II was made subsequently, was not the subject matter of consideration before the Hon ble Supreme Court. He also draws our attention to the Tribunal s order in the case of Osram Surya and submits that the facts are not clear. Though the inputs were received by the assessee in that case in Apr. 95, there is no recording of fact as to whether Apr. 95, itself was beyond the period of six months. Further, drawing our attention to the order portion of the Tribunal s decision, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty paid on the inputs, especially when the entries has been made in RG-23A Part I record and otherwise there is no dispute about the entitlement of the credit to the assessees. We find that various decisions of the Tribunal answered the above question in favour of the assessees. Reference may be made to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 786 (Tri.-Che.) as also to Commissioner of Central Excise v. Crest Cables Limited - 2002 (50) R.L.T. 704 (T). We also take note of another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Banner Pharma Caps Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi - 2009 (246) E.L.T. 364 (Tri.-Ahmd.). It is seen that originally the learned Member (Technical) had disallowed the credit on the ground that though entries were made in RG-23A Part I within a period of six months, entries were not made in RG-23A Part II within that period and as such, the assessee was not entitled to the credit. Member (Judicial) wrote a separate order allowing the credit. On going through the order proposed by Member (Judicial), Member (Technical) agreed with the same and credit was held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther formality. The amount of credit is to be simplicitor written in the records. Further, the provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 57G require a manufacturer to maintain an account in form RG- 23A, Part I and Part II. We note that the register required to be maintained by an assessee is in Form RG-23A. The same further has two parts i.e., Part I and Part II. Admittedly, the respondents have made entries of inputs in RG-23A Part I and in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 57G, had become entitled to take the credit. Only the quantum of credit is required to be entered in RG-23A Part II. Inasmuch as, RG-23A Part I and RG-23A Part II required to be maintained in terms of sub-rule (7) of Rule 57G are two parts of the same register i.e., Form RG-23A, we are of the view that entries in RG-23A Part I itself would entitle an assessee to avail the credit and the entries in RG-23A Part II is only for accountal purposes. 10. Our above view gets strengthened, when we look at the proforma of RG-23A Part I and RG-23A Part II. Title to RG-23A Part I read as Stock account of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products . The said proforma reflects upon the description of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
