1996 (11) TMI 183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tral Excise Rules, 1944 inserted on 1-11-1993 are applicable retrospectively from 30-12-1988, or 2. Whether Rule 57G prohibits taking of credit on inputs received prior to filing of declaration, or/and 3. Whether the credit can be allowed under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of the inputs for which no declaration was filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It has been contended in the grounds for reference that in Rule 57G(1) that every manufacturer intending to take credity of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A, shall file a declaration with the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, having jurisdiction over his factory indicating the descriptions of the final products manufactu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be granted to them, is a question of law requiring reference to Hon'ble High Court for a decision. 2. Arguing for the revenue, ld. DR relying on the grounds made out in the reference application, submits that the question of law arises in the application for reference to High Court. 3. Ld. Advocate submits that the Tribunal has followed a settled law on this issue and where a settled law has been stated, a question of law does not arise for reference to the High Court. He also pointed out to the peculiar facts of the present case wherein the Tribunal had noted in its order that there is nothing in the Rule to expressly prohibit taking of credit on inputs received prior to the declaration having been filed. The Tribunal had a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e into in great detail again in the case of Apex Steels (P) Ltd. & Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh by three Members Bench as reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 368 (Tribunal) = 1995 (3) RLT 150 and even in that judgment, the Tribunal had by a detailed analysis come to the conclusion that there is justification for granting Modvat in such peculiar facts and circumstances, wherein both the department and the assessee were under the impression that the goods were exempted and were being cleared by the department itself without collecting duty. Therefore, he submits that applying the ratio by the Tribunal in the present case, no question arises for reference and that a settled question of law is not referable to High Court. Therefor....