1999 (12) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on capital goods received as per the provisions of Rule 57T credit taken by the appeallants on the basis of original copy of the invoice. The authorities below have taken a plea that in terms of Rule 57T read with Rule 52A of Modvat rules, the appellants cannot take benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods on the basis of original invoice as duplicate copy of the invoice was required to have been produced. 3. It was pleaded before the Commissioner that during the relevant period, Rule 57T did not lay down the production of duplicate copy of invoice and the rule specifically laid down only about taking credit on original invoice. However, the Commissioner referred to the amended Notification No. 23/94, dated 20-5-1994 by which provi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....they had filed all the declarations and it was only certain particulars which had been incorrectly written and that lapse was only procedural one. Further, the Superintendent of Range office had also verified and had issued them a certificate in this regard to take the benefit and the benefit was taken only after due verification by the Range Superintendent and issue of certificate. Therefore, he submits that the invocation of Notification No. 23/94, dated 20-5-1994 retrospectively is totally unjustified. He further submits that this point has already been considered by Northern Bench in the case of Gnaneshwar Sugar Mills as reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 203 and held that during the relevant period the rule did not have the provision for tak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....larificatory. The industry was guided by one particular procedure regarding maintenance of documents and every industry by then had removed the documents on that procedure. A prospective legislation changing the procedure cannot be applied retrospectively in such cases as the act pertaining to removals had already been done. Such acts cannot be undone. Therefore, the opinion expressed by the Commissioner that Notification 23/94, dated 20-5-1994 has retrospective effect is not acceptable for the reasons given above. Further, I notice that the Tribunal in the case of Gnaneshwar Sugar Mills Ltd. held that during the relevant period Rule 57G permitted having Modvat credit on original invoice and hence the issue is totally covered in favour of t....