TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otification allowing such credit was in force. He further held that only because such notification had been withdrawn, the credit already earned cannot be treated as lapsed. He set aside the Assistant Collector's order and allowed their Appeal with direction to the Assistant Collector to allow the transfer of credit in question. 3. In the other Appeal, viz. E-155/84, a similar decision was taken by the Collector (Appeals), the only difference being that the disputed amount of credit, the transfer of which to their Personal Ledger Account was allowed by the Collector (Appeals), related to regulatory duty. 4. Shri S. Dutt Majumder, learned Senior Departmental Representative argued the case on behalf of the appellant Collector. He reiterated the contentions raised in the Appeals. The credits in question were not permitted to be transferred to their Personal Ledger Accounts of the Respondents because the material received by them as well as their product were removed from the scope of Rule 56A and hence the unutilised credit could not be used by them and accordingly it was not permitted to be transferred to their P.L.A. The impugned decision of the Collector (Appeals) has t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transferred to their RG-23 Part II accounts relating to basic excise duty and thereafter use the same for payment of duty. They had made necessary applications in this regard. The Assistant Collector permitted an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs out of a sum of Rs. 2,76,537.43 applied for by them to be transferred. There was no difference between the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000 and the balance which was, however, not permitted. Only because of the delay on the part of the Assistant Collector in allowing transfer, were they deprived of the benefit. Only in 1978, in terms of Notifications 267/79 and 269/79 was the rate of duty on their product, Aluminium Rod, reduced and the item also became excluded from the purview of proforma credit scheme. It is not open to the department to deny them the benefit of the credit on account of this later development. They had applied in time for the transfer of the unutilised amounts in question which was fully admissible under the relevant provisions applicable then and, had the department allowed their request, they would have been able to utilise the amount when their material and product remained under the Proforma Credit Scheme. They cannot be made to suf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assistant Collector did grant the permission but limited it to only Rs. 2 lakhs and excluded a sum of approximately Rs. 76,000/- from such a benefit. It is stated that the permission could not be given for want of verification of the original RG-23 statement. It has been correctly pointed out that the RG-23 statements were being submitted by them regularly every month with their RT-12 returns and the same were available with the Departmental Officers. It has been stated by the respondents that the permission for Rs. 2 lakhs was granted even without calling for the original RG-23 which was not produced. We agree with their contention that when they were prevented from utilising the amounts in question when it was permissible for them to do so only by the Departmental authorities withholding the permission, it is not open to them to apply the subsequent provision removing the materials and products in question from the scope of Rule 56A and deny the benefit asked for. This type of problem has arisen in a number of Appeals decided by the Tribunal and it has been consistently held that the credit which was admissible at the time it was earned and which could have been utilised dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inished excisable goods, that if the procedures then in force did not permit credit of the amount of relief due by entry in the personal ledger account or other appropriate account the Department should pay the amount of relief in cash or by cheque. In the second MRF decision, the Tribunal followed the earlier decision. The present case is squarely covered by these decisions. In Appeal 155/84 relating to regulatory duty, the same was abolished in 1973 and to permit the continued utilisation of credit of such duty earned till its abolition, but not utilised till then, sub-rule (3) Rule 57A was amended as follows :- "(3)(vi-a)(b) : The credit of special excise duty or regulatory duty allowed in respect of any material or component parts and lying unutilised immediately before commencement of Central Excise (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 1973, in the account of the manufacturer may be utilised after such commencement towards payment of duty on any finished excisable goods for the manufacture of which such material or component parts were permitted to be brought into the factory sub-rule (2)." From 1973 onwards, the respondents had been corresponding with the Departmental Officers pressing....