1992 (12) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....manufacturers availing of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. On receipt of the inputs, they took Modvat credit of duty actually paid as evidenced from the Gate passes. Subsequently, they realised the mistake that these inputs are eligible for higher notional credit in terms of Rule 57A read with the Notification No. 175/86. Hence, they took differential modvat credit arising out of their eligibility to higher notional credit. However, the Department objected to taking of the differential credit arising out of the higher notional credit on the ground that such higher notional credit should have been taken only at the time of receipt of the inputs and not subsequently. The Asstt. Collector ordered reversal of the credit, which was c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roper, which states that higher notional credit can be taken within reasonable period i.e. within six months from the date of receipt of inputs and original rate of credit taken; (iii) It is respectfully submitted that the answer to these questions would be negative in view of Board's Circular No. 48/90 under F. No. 267/34/88 dated 18-7-1990 (copy enclosed) and a reference application made against CEGAT order in the case of Mysore Lac & Paints reported at 1991 (52) E.L.T. 590 by Collector, Central Excise, Bangalore (Copy of telex enclosed). 3. After hearing both the sides, I observe that the question No. (i) does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal, possibly, it may arise out of the order of the Collector (Appeals) an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e question, as to what would be the reasonable period, may also arise. On this the Tribunal has considered that the normal period of limitation for claiming refund could be reasonably adopted. 4. Shri Gupte, sought to rely on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. On perusal of the judgment, I observe that para (9) is worth noting which is reproduced below : "It may also be noted that there is no provision in the Rules governing MODVAT credit for varying the credit once taken, i.e. if a short-credit is taken by an assessee, there is no specific provision enabling the assessee to claim the differential credit subsequently. But having regard to the overall scheme of the Act and the Rules it would be pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the normal period of six months prescribed under Section 11B with regard to refund, in taking money credit, which was not taken at the initial stage. In my view, this view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in agreement with the view taken by this Bench. I am also to observe that what is not prohibited specifically in the Rule can also be permitted provided the eligibility on merits is not disputed and the claim is made within a reasonable period. 6. However, Shri Mondal contends that the law does not specifically provide for it and the reasonable period cannot be construed by the authorities working under the statute on their own, without such a specific provision in the statute. This is a point of law arising out of the order and ....