TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (7) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the supplier of the said input and the appellants received challan issued by the Officer-in-Charge of the supplier's factory, on the basis of which, the appellants herein had taken credit in their RG 23A Part II Account for these payments of duty by their supplier. Such credits were taken by the appellants during the months of October to December, 1986. Copies of these RG 23A Part I & II Statements of the relevant months in which the credits were taken by them, were submitted by them as usual along with their monthly RT 12 returns. It is this credit of Rs. 3,6,227.03 which had been denied by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur in his impugned order against a show cause notice dated 4-12-1991. 1.2 On adjudication, apart fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is a decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in their favour. But he submits that this decision is not the final word inasmuch as two references to different High Courts in the following cases namely Collector v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 27 and Collector v. Rajasthan Explosives and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 110, have been made on this very issue. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be kept pending till the decisions of the High Courts are available. 4. On the question of time-bar, he reiterates the finding of the Commissioner which has held that a reading of Rule 57E indicates that the appellants were required to maintain accounts of stock of inputs received and of utilisation of inp....