TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts cleared by LBE during 93-94 and 94-95. Goods had been cleared availing inadmissible SSI exemption. Vide his letter dated 19.12.96, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner refused to issue a certificate under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, '44 to enable the customer of LBE to take credit of the duty paid pursuant to the above adjudication order. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy set aside the direction of the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeal filed by LBE. 2. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it is submitted that the duty involved related to clandestine clearances and came to be paid on detection of the evasion by the preventive officers of the department and adjudication of the dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon this Tribunals decision in the case of EL Forge Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai reported in [2004 (177) ELT 353 (Tri.-Chen.)] in support of the appeal. 5. We have considered the records and submissions by both sides. In the case of EL Forge Ltd .(supra), this Tribunal found that in that case no duty was paid when goods were removed and duty was paid subsequently on insistence of the department. Hence it could not be a case of variation of duty and no certificate of payment of duty could be issued under Rule 57R (4) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules , 1944. In CCE Vs. Dunlop (I) Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal vacated the order withdrawing 57E certificate as not proper. It was decided in that case that amendment to Rule 57E had come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants had initially paid "nil" duty and the duty paid following adjudication had involved a variation in the duty paid. The appellant's customer was entitled to credit for this duty amount. 5.2. We find that the Apex Court in CCE Vs. Home Ashok Leyland Ltd., (supra), made the following observations in paras 3 and 4 of its judgment. "3. ……… Rule 57A recognizes the right of the manufacturer to claim credit. Rule 57E recognizes not only the right of the manufacturer to claim credit but also the extent to which credit could be claimed for the duty paid on inputs. Therefore, Rule 57A is a substantive provision. However, the procedure of adjustment finds place in Rule 57E. Rule 57E is procedural provision. It deals with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
