TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (5) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to a notice dated 10-3-1992 while the credit disallowed had been taken by them on 11-11-1988 in their RG 23A Part II in respect of inputs received by them earlier but which remained in stock when they opted for Modvat facility on the said date viz. 11-11-1988. It was held in the order that they had suppressed the fact of not having obtained the permission of Assistant Collector under Rule 57H and the longer period upto five years was invoked for the notice. 2.Shri S.K. Sinha, learned Advocate appeared for the Appellants. He stated that apart from their having a very good case on merits, the longer time limit had also been invoked wrongly as there was no suppression or mis-statement. Explaining his point, Shri Sinha, learned Counsel st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on would be the one given by them on 10-8-1987 itself. In that event, the receipts of inputs in question would be covered by Rule 57G(2) even as per the interpretation thereof given by the Departmental Officers. For this contention raised by him, Shri Sinha relied upon the decision of the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal in Wox Coolers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 637. The last contention raised by Shri Sinha on the merits of the issue was that Rule 57H does not require prior permission of the Assistant Collector. Such a permission is not expressly provided for in the said Rule. 3. On the question of limitation, Shri Sinha submitted that there was absolutely no suppression or wilful mis-s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit under Rule 57H, they should have applied for necessary permission to the Assistant Collector and only on his granting the permission. This is clear from the wording of Rule 57H(1) itself. As per this provision, the Assistant Collector may allow credit of duty. That means he has got the discretion. Hence, without his permission, credit cannot be taken for inputs received prior to obtaining the dated acknowledgement of the declaration. The contention of the learned Counsel in this regard is not acceptable, he submitted. On the question of limitation, he pointed out that the Collector had dealt with this question in detail and correctly applied the longer time limit. Accordingly, the Order deserves to be upheld, he concluded. 5. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... down that the Assistant Collector may allow the credit of duty paid on inputs received by a manufacturer immediately before obtaining the dated acknowledgement of the declaration and granting of such permission is subject to his satisfaction about the inputs lying in stock or their being received after filing the declaration and about the inputs being used in the manufacture of final products cleared after 1-3-1987, it is clear that all these details should be available before the Assistant Collector for him to be satisfied about the same. Such a satisfaction on his part cannot be achieved on his own without an application indicating the stock position and receipts of inputs. Hence, an application is required. Here, no application under Ru....