2002 (11) TMI 204 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Claim Allowed: Time Limit Not Applicable

The appellant's claim for additional credit was not time-barred as the application was made before the introduction of a six-month time limit. The ... Modvat/Cenvat - Additional credit - Limitation - Reasonable period Issues:- Whether appellant's claim for allowing additional credit is barred by time as it was made after the expiry of six months from the date of taking the initial credit.Analysis:1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Unmachined Copper Casting and Proofmachined Copper Casting, used unwrought copper alloys and copper waste and scrap as inputs for the final product. A mistake led to the appellant taking deemed credit on unwrought copper alloys at a lower rate than allowed. The appellant applied for the difference in credit, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for a speaking order, acknowledging the appellant's entitlement to the differential credit. However, a subsequent show cause notice raised concerns about the timing of the application, verification issues, and admissibility of the credit under the Central Excise Rules.3. The appellant contended that the time limit of six months, as applied by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on an amendment in 1995, was erroneous. The appellant argued that during the relevant period, no such time limit was prescribed. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the need for specific statutory provisions on limitation periods.4. The absence of a prescribed time limit for making the application at the time of the appellant's request was highlighted. The subsequent introduction of a six-month time limit was noted, but it was clarified that this amendment did not have retrospective effect. The Supreme Court's stance on importing limitation periods by implication was cited to support the appellant's argument.5. The Tribunal concluded that the concept of a reasonable period could only be applied when a citizen's rights were adversely affected. Since there was no statutory time limit in place when the appellant made the application, the rejection of the claim based on a delay beyond six months was deemed erroneous. Consequently, the orders of the authorities below were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.