TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Tribunal is incorrect and unjust and, therefore, the period of limitation of six months imported by the Tribunal in Rule 57G is unsustainable as the Tribunal or the Courts are not competent to import any specific period of limitation by implication. In view of answer to the first question, the question Nos. (ii) and (iii) also have to be decided against the revenue and in favour of the dealer. - 13 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2009 - M.M. Kumar and H.S. Bhalla, JJ. [Order per : M.M. Kumar, J.]. - The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which was earlier known as Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), has sent the following questions of law for adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 177/86 as amended, for the import of insulated paper in respect of the period of 4-1-1989 to 1-2-1991. The dealer did not avail full credit of additional duty paid by them under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the mistaken impression that the credit available was restricted to Rs. 800/- per M.T. on the actual duty. It was subsequently realized that there was no restriction in respect of additional duty of customs. Consequently, they took a credit of differential duty to the tune of Rs. 22,83,788.60 by making a credit entry in their RG-23A Part I on 24-5-1991. The dealer was served with a show cause notice on 14-10-1994 alleging that the credit of duty on insulated paper was restricted to Rs. 800/- per M.T. in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of differential credit between the date of taking credit and the date of taking additional credit of differential duty. It went on to held that the reasonable period must be construed to be six month. 4. The dealer feeling aggrieved then sought reference to this Court of the aforementioned questions of law. 5. We have heard Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel for the revenue. The principle question raised before us is whether a period of limitation of 6 months for availing Modvat credit during the relevant period could be introduced when no provision existed. It is relevant to mention that in the present case we are concerned with the period from 4-1-1989 to 1-2-1991. It is significant to notice that Rule 57G of the erstwhile Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was introduced on 29-6-1995 which is prospective in its operation and in respect of the period earlier to that no limitation was prescribed. Therefore, it was concluded that any transaction earlier to 29-6-1995 was not to attract the period of limitation of six months and the dealer was within its right to avail the shortfall in the Modvat credit at any time. 7. In the light of the aforementioned principles and precedents, the facts in the present case are required to be examined. The period involved herein range from 4-1-1989 to 1-2-1991 and would, therefore, not be hit by the amendment made in Rule 57G which was introduced on 29-6-1995. Accordingly, the aforementioned 3 questions of law are answered as under :- (i) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
