TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (4) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rlier received can be allowed, when such a claim for additional credit is also made prior to 15-4-1987. The appellants in both these cases pleaded that the additional credit is to be given in terms of Rule 57A and no recourse need be had to Rule 57E, whether it was prior to amendment or subsequent to amendment. Hence, since the issues canvassed (though in a different manner by the two ld. advocates) is the same we are dealing with both these appeals by this common order. 2. Certain facts are required to be set out for proper appreciation of the issues involved. 2.1 In Appeal E/261/89-Bom, the appellants are manufacturers of detergents. They received L.A.B. as an input from M/s I.P.C.L. on payment of duty provisionally under Head 2710.39 of the Central Excise Tariff, which chapter was not notified under the Modvat Scheme. However, input L.A.B. was classified under 3801.90 for purposes of countervailing duty, which was also received by them. Chapter 38 was notified under Modvat Scheme and they had been taking Modvat Credit by filing a declaration under Rule 57A. In respect of indigenous input cleared on payment of duty by I.P.C.L. on provisional assessment basis under Chapter 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the present appeal before us. 3.1 The main thrust of Shri Lodha's arguments can be summed up as below: (Appeal No. 261/89) In their case. Rule 57E has no application. They can straightaway claim benefit under Rule 57A. They filed a declaration for availing MODVAT credit in respect of LAB classifiable under Chapter 38. In fact they have been taking MODVAT credit in respect of countervailing duty paid on such imported input under Chapter 38. In respect of Indigenous input, they received under G.P.ls evidencing clearance on provisional assessment basis under Chapter 27. Since Chapter 27 was not notified under Modvat scheme, there was no occassion to claim Modvat credit and take the credit in RG 23A initially. But when the said inputs are finally assessed under Chapter 38 and differential duty also paid under Chapter 38, cause of action for claiming Modvat credit has arisen on the date of payment of differential duty. Hence they can take credit under Rule 57A, without even seeking for permission from the Department. Only by way of abundant caution, they have approached the Department for giving the credit. Hence, he contended that in their case, there was no initial credit take....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n payment of differential duty. Such a provision can be found only in Rule 57E, which, during the material period, did not provide for such adjustment. 5. After hearing both the sides, we find that we had dealt with a somewhat identical issue in the case of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra reported in 1991 (35) ECR 249. The issue dealt with in that case has been spelt out in para 6A of that order and our findings are contained in paras 7 to 9 of the order. For the sake of brevity, we are not reproducing the same fully, excepting para 9 of the order, which is reproduced for giving the essence of our view as below:- * * * * &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....987, it was provided in that Rule that variation in credit is permissible in respect of any variation in duty paid on account of any reason. This shows that the Govt. has been introducing this change by stages and it does not seem to give an impression that it is of a clarificatory nature. 8. While interpreting the provisions of any Rule in the Modvat scheme, we are of the view that, the scheme as a whole is to be taken into account as envisaged in the relevant Chapter'AA' - relating to credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs. If we take the composite view, it becomes necessary to look into the provision of Rule 57A to be read with the provision of other Rules namely 57B, 57C, 57D, 57E, 57F, 57G etc. Rule 57A cannot be read in isolation. In that view, it is inescapable to hold the view that the only provision enabling variation in credit is Rule 57E and when that Rule did not provide for the adjustment in credit due to short levy/non-levy, that was a policy decision and we, being the creature of statute, cannot go beyond that. 9. In fairness, we are also to observe that though Rule 57E did not provide for such adjustment in credit of differential duty recovered ....