TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period of April, 1999 to July, 1999, against 19 numbers of invoices relating to input "furnace oil", the appellant availed Modvat credit only to the extent of 50% and the said 50% credit was taken within the time prescribed under the Central Excise Rule 57G, sub-rule (5). It is the case of appellants that due to inadvertence, they have not taken the balance credit of 50%. After realising the mistake of not taking the entire credit, the appellants written a letter dated 16-11-1999 seeking permission to take the balance credit of 50%. Vide letter dated 12-1-2000, the Assistant Commissioner permitted the appellant to take the balance credit of 50% relating to furnace oil, subject to the observatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 57G(5) has already been satisfied by taking 50% of the credit within 6 months against all the invoices in dispute, whether the said Rule 57G(5) has to be applied for the second time for the very same invoices?" 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had already taken the credit to the extent of 50% and therefore the period of limitation under Rule 57G, sub-rule (5) should be reckoned from the date (12-1-2000) on which date the Department had granted permission to the appellant to take the balance amount of credit. Placing reliance upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Commissioner of C. Ex., Lucknow v. Gyan Packaging India (P) Ltd., 2007 (218) E.L.T. 255 (Tri.-Del.) learned counsel submitted that whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any document specified in Rule 57G, sub-rule (3). 8. The relevant 19 invoices in dispute were issued on various dates from 2nd April, 1999 to 17th July, 1999. CESTAT has recorded a factual finding that the input (furnace oil) received by the appellant in their factory under cover of relevant invoices was entered in Part I of RG-23A on 22-9-1999. The appellant initially availed credit only to the extent of 50% of the quantity received by them and the said 50% credit was availed within the period of six months. 9. According to the appellant, the appellant was under bona fide impression that the balance quantity for use in the manufacture of goods, which are cleared on Nil rate of duty and due to inadvertence they availed credit on....