2007 (9) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f this Court dated 2-8-1999 in Civil Petition No. 724/98 wherein this Court directed the Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law in terms of Sec. 35F(3) read with Sec. 35J of the Central Excise Act: "1. In the facts and circumstances of the matter involved herein, is the Tribunal right in considering the availment of Modvat Credit by the petitioner on the input lacquer for a total amount of Rs.13,79,498/- as not within the framework of the modvat scheme, as contemplated in the Modvat Rules, particularly Rule 57A, Rule 57F and Rule 57G, as was in force at the material point of time? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances herein, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding that the input lacquer manufactured and utilised at....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... contravention of Rule 57F(3)(b) of the Rules and Modvat credit availed by them was required to be reversed for the period 27-8-1991 to 30-6-1992. 3. Further, the Tribunal on the appeal filed by the appellants confirmed the impugned order by Final Order No. 1976 to 1979/97, dated 28-7-1997. It has given detailed reasons for upholding the view expressed by the original authority and in this regard, the Tribunal also took into consideration that the scheme of modvat as incorporated under Rule 57A read with Rules 57G and 57F of the Rules. Further reference was also made to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Ujagar Prints reported in 1989 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.). 4. The petitioner herein filed an application before the Tribunal seeking....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he parties which reads thus: "We do not find that any colourable device was used by both the appellants to defraud the Government, particularly in view of the fact that, as observed earlier, the Collector himself has not confirmed the demand where the parts actually moved from the premises of bSL to MUL and were received back. This particular movement of the inputs was intended to be saved by issue of the procedure under the Board's Circular. The various other points have been taken by the Collector in the impugned order such as violation of Rule 51A for not obtaining the permission to retain the duty paid goods in the premises, and in not following completely the procedure under Rule 57F(2). These are not to come in the way of availing ....