TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is filed by M/s. N.V.K. Mohamed Sultan Rawther Sons Ltd. against demand of credit of Rs. 64,994/- on the ground that the credit was taken in the RG-23 account of the appellants beyond six months of the date of the relevant invoice. The invoice was dated 06-10-95 and the credit should have been taken within six months of 06-10-95. The appellant had taken the credit on 24-7-96. Six months' time had expired on 06-04-96. The impugned order sustained the order of the original authority on the basis that proviso to Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER), laid down time limit of six months from the date of issue of any specified duty paying document to take credit on the strength of it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt did not need to reverse the credit taken. In the above Final Order it was decided that the ratio of a decision of the Tribunal did not stand in the way of M/s. N.V.K. Mohd. Sultan Rowther Sons Ltd., getting refund of an amount it had paid in excess. The bar to grant refund of excess amount collected but returned to the buyer through credit notes did not operate in the case of the appellant as it had produced scented betel nuts decided by the apex Court to be a non excisable item. 4. The ld. SDR submits that a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 214 (Tri.-LB) had decided that unless a manufacturer took credit of duty paid on inputs within six months from the date of issue of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it if substantive conditions about the payment of duty and use of goods in manufacture of end products in factory are fulfilled. In the judgment of the High Court of Madras in CCE v. ITC Ltd. (supra) cited by the ld. Consultant, their lordships considered admissibility to credit of duty paid on capital goods received in the factory for failure to file declaration and intimation to the department in terms of the provisions of CER. Their lordships decided eligibility of capital goods credit in a case where the Tribunal had found that the only failure held against the appellant to deny credit was that the relevant Modvat declaration under Rule 57(T) had been filed beyond the prescribed time limit of three months. In Sukam Gravures Ltd. v. CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knowledgement of the said declaration. (2) A manufacturer who has filed a declaration under sub-rule (1) may, after obtaining the acknowledgement aforesaid, take credit of the duty paid on the inputs received by him: [provided that - (i) no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of a document specified herein below:- (a) an invoice issued by a manufacture of inputs under rule 52A or 100E of the said rules; (b) an invoice issued by the manufacturer of inputs from his depot; (c) triplicate copy of a bill of entry; (d) a certificate issued by an Appraiser of Customs posted in Foreign Post Office; (e) an invoice issued by a first stage dealer of excisable goods, registered under Rule 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
