TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal reconsiders order on Rule 57T(3) interpretation</h1> <h3>ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD</h3> The Tribunal recalled the order in a case involving the interpretation of Rule 57T(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the comparison between credit ... Rectification of mistake - Error apparent on face of record Issues:1. Interpretation of Rule 57T(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding availing credit on capital goods.2. Application of Notification No. 30/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 29-6-1994 for extending the period of availing credit.3. Comparison between Rule 57T(3) and Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for credit availing purposes.Interpretation of Rule 57T(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:The appellant filed a ROM application challenging the Tribunal's order, arguing that the decision in Montari Industries case was not applicable to their case as it dealt with inputs, while the appellant's case involved availing credit on capital goods. The appellant contended that Rule 57T(3) did not restrict credit to only invoices under Rule 57A but allowed credit based on various documents specified under Rule 57G. The appellant highlighted the distinction between Rule 57T(3) and Rule 57G, emphasizing that credit could be availed on any document used for sale or removal of excisable goods. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found an error on the face of the record and recalled the order, scheduling the case for regular hearing.Application of Notification No. 30/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 29-6-1994:The appellant raised the issue of Notification No. 30/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 29-6-1994, which extended the period for availing credit until 30-12-1994. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the impact of this notification on their case, despite it being cited before the Tribunal. The appellant sought a modification of the order based on this notification. However, the Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the recorded judgment but recalled the order based on other grounds.Comparison between Rule 57T(3) and Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:The appellant emphasized the difference between Rule 57T(3) and Rule 57G regarding availing credit on capital goods. While Rule 57T(3) allowed credit based on various specified documents, Rule 57G required credit to be taken only on an invoice issued under Rule 52A. The appellant argued that the Tribunal overlooked this crucial distinction, leading to an error in the judgment. The Tribunal, upon review, acknowledged the mistake and recalled the order for further hearing.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case primarily revolved around the interpretation of Rule 57T(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the distinction between credit availing procedures for capital goods under Rule 57T(3) and Rule 57G. The application of Notification No. 30/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 29-6-1994 was also raised by the appellant but was not explicitly addressed in the recorded judgment. The Tribunal found an error on the face of the record and recalled the order, setting the case for regular hearing to reconsider the issues raised by the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
