TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB) falling under CSH 3817.00 of the CETA 1985 attracting duty @ 16% and was registered with the Central Excise Department under rule 174 of the CE Rules, 1944. Pacol Catalyst (Platinum Catalyst) is an input for the manufacture of LAB and is imported and is subjected to Additional Customs Duty under the CETA heading 3815.00. The appellants have been receiving consignments of the said input and have been regularly taking credit, based on the duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry (EDI). In respect of one such Bill of entry bearing No. 211261 dated 18-3-99, it was not handed over to the Despatch Section of the appellants' factory who were in charge of the taking credit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for taking credit. He has also invited our attention to the Clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs vide F.No. 345/2/2000-TRU dated 29-8-2000, a copy of which is filed in the paper book as per Annexure G, wherein the Central Board vide para 9 thereof has clarified that in respect of a situation where the inputs had been received in the factory on or before 31-3-2000, but the credit was not taken for some reason, since the Modvat credit had been earned by the manufacturer, the manufacturer is entitled to take Cenvat Credit of the amount. He further submitted that in the present case, it is an admitted position that the appellants have earned the credit of Rs. 2,47,463/- prior to 1-4-2000 because by that time the input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be the date on which the importer can reasonably expect that the goods came into his hands - That would be the date on which the goods are passed out of customs charge. (b) Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 459. In this case Modvat credit was taken after a period of 3 to 4 years from the date of issue of duty paying documents, but before 29-6-95. Modvat Credit was denied on the ground that on 29-6-95, Rule 57G was amended to introduce the time limit of six months for duty paying documents. (c) CCE, Chennai v. CEGAT reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 535 wherein it was held that when credit was taken there was no limitation of 6 months. Such limitation introduced subsequently by Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned Counsel for the appellants in the case of Hamco Mining Smelting Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Bench has held that there is no date of issue of Bill of entry unlike in the invoice. In the case of SAIL v. CCE, Raipur (supra) it was held that credit pertaining to the period prior to amendment of Rule 57G of CE Rules, 1944 cannot be denied even if credit was taken 3-4 years later. The amended rule 57AC(1) also does not stipulate any time limit for taking Modvat Credit. Further, the Central Board of Customs and Excise has also vide F.No. 345/2/2000-TRU, dated 29-8-2000 has also issued clarification to the effect that in a situation where the capital goods received before the 1st day of April 2000, and Modvat Credit could not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
