Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (11) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ow cause notice was issued demanding the credit taken and proposing to impose penalty for violation of rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The demand was confirmed along with penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/-. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) the demand was upheld but the penalty was reduced to Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The case had another round of litigation after CESTAT remanded the matter and in the second round of litigation, the amount mentioned above and penalty have been confirmed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Rule 57G(3) and 57G(5) are relevant for the present dispute, which are reproduced below:-     "(3) No credit under sub-rule (2), shall be taken by the manufacturer unless the inputs are received in the factory....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aced reliance on a judgment of this Court in Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India [1999 (106) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] wherein this Court had held that a right accrued to an assessee on the date when it paid the tax on the raw-materials or the inputs would continue until the facility available thereto gets worked out or until those goods existed. In that background, this Court held that by Section 37 of the Act, the authorities concerned cannot make a rule which could take away the said right on goods manufactured prior to the date specified in the concerned rule. In the facts of Eicher's case (supra), it is seen that by introduction of Rule 57F(4A) to the Rules, a credit which was lying unutilized on 16-3-1995 with the manufacturer was held to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d through bills of entry. In the said judgment, the Larger Bench observed as under:-        "6. 'Bill of Entry' as defined under Section 2(4) of the Customs Act means a 'bill of entry' referred to in Section 46 of the Act. Section 46 provides for presentation of a bill of entry to the proper officer of customs by the importer for home consumption of the goods imported by the latter. Section 47 of the Act governs further procedure in relation to the document up to clearance of the goods for home consumption. this procedure includes return of Bill of Entry by the proper officer to the importer for the purpose of payment of the duty assessed. After such payment of duty followed by return of the bi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-rule (5) of Rule 57G providing for a period of six months from the date of issue of any document specified in sub-rule (3) for the purpose of availment of input duty credit must be held applicable to credit of CVD paid on imported goods cleared for home consumption, which payment is evidenced by triplicate copy of Bill of Entry or duplicate copy of Bill of Entry, as the case may be. Nobody has a case that "any document specified in sub-rule (3)" would not include the copies of Bill of Entry specified under clauses (c) and (k) of the said sub-rule, nor can anybody be heard to argue to the contra, for, such argument would be illogical and imprudent inasmuch as the rule-making authority cannot be expected to have deliberately avoided prescrib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal in terms of this order." 3.3 In view of the above decisions, the time limit of six months would be applicable from the date of issue of the bill of entry and even in respect of the goods imported prior to the amendment of Rule 57G(5) introducing the time limit. 4. During argument, the learned counsel has drawn attention to this Tribunal's judgment in the case of Banner Pharma Caps Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Vapi reported in 2009(246)ELT 364(Tri-Ahmd). 4.1 I have gone through the said judgment. In the said case, initially there was a difference of opinion between the Member (Technical) and Member (Judicial). However, Member (Technical), later on, agreed with Member (Judicial), keeping view the fact that in the said case, the goods were re....