TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (11) TMI 257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers of Wrist Watches obtained various inputs and availed Modvat credit on the duty paid inputs. One of the inputs, Polystyrene, according to the appellants, is sent directly by the manufacturer of the inputs to the job worker on behalf of the appellants for purposes of manufacture of Polystyrene Boxes, an intermediate product, under Rule 57J of Central Excise Rules, 1944. During June '97 to October '97 the manufacturer of Polystyrene had sent directly a certain quantity of Polystyrene to the job workers on behalf of the present appellants and the appellants had prepared challans under Rule 57F(4) and sent them to the job worker. In certain instances, according to the appellants, the intermediate products manufactured by the job worker were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been admitted both in the SCN and in the Order-in-Original. However, Modvat credit has been denied to the appellants on the ground that the appellants have failed to satisfy the Asst. Commissioner of the reasons for seeking extension of time for receipt of the goods from the job worker under the provisions of Rule 57F(4) as it stood at the relevant time. It is argued for the appellants that the letters sent by the appellants seeking extension of time, apparently under the provisions of Rule 57F(4), was only for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the challan which was common both for Rule 57J and Rule 57F(4). According to ld. Counsel, the authorities below had without any justification imported the requirement of sixty days p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmediate products within the period of sixty days was, at worst, a technical lapse which would not disentitle them from availing of the Modvat credit. He relies on the Tribunal decision in Lupin Laboratories Ltd. v. C.C.E., Indore [1994 (71) E.L.T. 914 (T)] in which the Tribunal had held that the benefit of Modvat credit scheme cannot be denied to the assessee for mere non-observance of the technical requirements of Rules 57F and Rule 57G. The Tribunal had observed in the said case that it is a well settled position that what is relevant is substantial compliance with the provisions of law and as long as a manufacturer has substantially complied with the law, the benefit in accordance with law cannot be denied for non-observance of technica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round that the appellants had failed to submit proof thereof. The credit was taken by the appellants on 6-10-1997 in the said case. In this connection, ld. Counsel has invited my attention to Annexure-I of the Appeal papers in which photo copy of the relevant challan (No. 8) has been enclosed wherein the gate entry No. 633 in the name of the appellants, M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. shows the date as 30-9-1997 and the date of taking credit has been shown as 6-10-1997. According to the ld. Counsel, the job worker had by mistake indicated the date of despatch from their factory as 25-11-1997 instead of 25-9-1997. He submits that this had been explained by the appellants in their reply to the Show Cause Notice. They had also placed a copy of chal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other enactment for purpose of avoiding the operation and effect of all contrary provisions. 7. I, therefore, find force in the ld. Counsel's submission that since the appellants were operating under the provisions of Rule 57J, even if there was any contravention of the provisions of any other rule, by virtue of the non obstante clause in Rule 57J, the provisions of Rule 57J would override the provisions of the other rules like Rule 57F(4). Since admittedly appellants were operating under Rule 57J and sending the inputs (Polystyrene) directly from the manufacturer to the job worker and getting the intermediate goods manufactured by the job worker back under Rule 57J, there was no reason why the provisions of Rule 57F(4) relating to ....