9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used by the appellants for manufacture of finished goods are polypropylene, master batches, BOPP taps and polythene bags which are common inputs of dutiable final products namely plastic moulded parts of motor vehicle, refrigerators, washing machines and colour televisions as also exempted final products namely plastic moulded parts of sewing machine. As the inputs used were common, therefore, the appellants were required to maintain separate inventory and account of inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable products and exempted products. The appellants were filing declarations under Rule 57G from time to time. A dispute arose as the appellants took Modvat credit on common inputs used in manufacture of exempted final products, some of wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble High Court had held that the application when filed late under Rule 57CCC can be allowed when the petitioner was bonafidely prosecuting a remedy before a judicial forum. He also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ludhiana vs. M/s Ludhiana Beverages P. Ltd. in Appeal No. E/45/2008-EX[DB]. 4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that interest at applicable rate prescribed in Finance Act, 2010 was payable on the amount reversed in terms Rule 57CCC under Finance Act, 2010. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 6. We find that in this case the dispute relates to irregular availment of Modvat credit in respect of final product carrying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments as laid down therein within a period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2010 receives the assent of the President. As held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. (supra), the delay in filing the application under the above mentioned amendment statutory scheme is condonable as the appellants were prosecuting remedy before this Tribunal. 7. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that the appellants have reversed the credit taken in respect of inputs, though admittedly, as pointed out by Ld. Advocate, one reversal of Rs. 34,827/- was made in April, 2002 and the other reversals were made before the issuance of show cause notice. 8. In view of the foregoing, the demand on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
