TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1999 and credit was availed in March 2000. Appellants want us to interpret the rule to mean that the rule in question is not applicable in regard to credits acquired by a manufacturer prior to the coming into force of the rule. This we find it difficult because in our opinion the language of the proviso concerned is unambiguous. It specifically states that a manufacturer cannot take credit after six months from the date of issue of any of the documents specified in the first proviso to the said sub-rule. A plain reading of this sub-rule clearly shows that it applies to those cases where a manufacturer is seeking to take the credit after the introduction of the rule and to cases where the manufacturer is seeking to do so after a period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was availed in RG23A Part- II register during the period August and September 1995. On 29.6.1995, Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was amended by insertion of proviso to Rule 57G by Notification No. 28/95-CE(NT) dated 29.6.95 insofar as manufacturer shall not take credit after six months of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in the first proviso to sub-rule. A show-cause notice dated 21.11.95 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise proposing to disallow the credit of Rs.10,86,556.84 taken by them in their RG 23A part -II in violation of the proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs.10,86,556.84 under Section 11A of the Central Excise A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 2005 (187) ELT 355. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that in the present case, the appellant received the imported inputs during the period 15.11.94 to 20.1.95 accompanied with Bills of Entry and duly recorded in their RG 23A Part -I register. There is a delay in taking the credit in the RG 23A Part - II register which they have done in the month of August and September 1995. I find that the identical facts were raised in the case of Ford India (supra). In that case, the assessee received the inputs during the period May to September 1999 and credit was availed in March 2000. The issue involved in that case was whether the mistake committed by the assessee in not reflecting the quantum of credit in RG 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the rule also is based on arbitrariness of the rule, and the same also will have to be rejected on the ground that there is no challenge to the validity of the rule. 9. Without such a challenge, the appellants want us to interpret the rule to mean that the rule in question is not applicable in regard to credits acquired by a manufacturer prior to the coming into force of the rule. This we find it difficult because in our opinion the language of the proviso concerned is unambiguous. It specifically states that a manufacturer cannot take credit after six months from the date of issue of any of the documents specified in the first proviso to the said sub-rule. A plain reading of this sub-rule clearly shows that it applies to those case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
