9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Central Excise in final Order No.975/2006 dated 26.10.2006 and final Order No.40630/2015 dated 15.06.2015 respectively. 2.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.1535 of 2007 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether the differential duty paid after 16.03.1995 for clearances of excisable goods (components) made before 16.03.1995 will be available as credity to the manufacture of final products (Chassis) in terms of Rule 57E of CEA 44 (OR) whether in view of the Rule 57F(4A) the said credit will be barred" and (b) Whether in the above circumstances the Tribunal was correct in reject claim for Rs. 5,37,979.80 which will be available t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that had the assessee correctly paid CVD at the time of import and availed MODVAT credit, this amount would be lapsed as per Rule 57F(4A) of the Rules. It is his submission that Rule 57F(4A) causes lapse only of the credit lying unutilized as on 16.03.1995, i.e. the credit which has been availed before 16.03.1995 and in the assessee's case, the credit has been availed only much after 16.03.1995 under Madras Customs certificate dated 18.08.1996. Therefore, on its very terms, Rule 57F(4A) of the Rules does not apply to the assessee's case. Thus, it is the contention of the learned counsel that the said Rule cause lapse only of past credit as of a particular date, namely, 16.03.1995 and not of future credit. 5.The assessee was before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri.-Chennai) rejected the assessee's appeal. This is how the assessee is before us by way of these appeals. 6.We have heard Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents on the above submissions. 7.To arrive at a decision in these appeals and to answer the substantial questions of law, it would be necessary to take note of Rule 57F(4A) which was substituted by notification No.11/95-C.E. (NT) dated 16.03.1995, which reads as follows: "Rule 57F(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4) or sub-rule (1) of rule 57A and the notifications issued thereunder, any credit of specified duty lying unutilized on the 16th day of March, 1995, with a manufacturer of tractors, falling under hearing No.87.01 or motor vehicles fall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F(4A) of the Rules used the terms any credit of specified duty lying unutilized and it does not refer to the inputs lying with the assessee. In our considered view the assessee cannot call upon this Court to decide the validity of the above Rule which has already been upheld. Furthermore, the Court cannot substitute the words in the statute and what is required to be seen is the intention of the statute. Therefore, for all purposes what would be relevant is what had occurred prior to 16.03.1995. In the instant case, what occasioned the availment of credit after 16.03.1995 is an import which had occurred prior to 16.03.1995 and the credit certificate was given by the Madras Customs because of higher rate of CVD to be paid on the imports. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
