TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on the date when they paid the tax on the raw materials or inputs‟, as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in para 6 of Eicher Motors Limited Vs. UOI - 1999 (106) ELT 3 (SC) and that such right gets crystallized in his favour „instantaneously once the input is received in the factory on the basis of the existing scheme‟? (ii) Whether act of making such receipt of the inputs in Part-I of the single comprehensive RG-23A account evidences comprehensive RG-23A account evidences such crystallization of the right to MODVAT credit in favour of assessee and thus amounts to „taking of the credit‟ as envisaged in the Scheme or only the second (accounting) entry in the Part-II of the same RG-23A Account only co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts specified. It was found that in the entries made in the documents maintained under RG-23 A - Part I & II, even though in Part I the entry is made showing date of taking availment of MODVAT credit within the stipulated period of six months, but in Part II as the date was beyond six months, the Tribunal held that the facility of MODVAT cannot be extended as the assessee has not shown availing of the benefit in accordance to the requirement of the Rule. 4- Accordingly, by making the following observations - " In support of this contention, the appellants cited and relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Motors. We find that RG 23 A - Part I and Part II is a consolidated record. There ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue of any of the documents specified in the first proviso to this sub-rule". (Emphasis supplied) For availing of the aforesaid benefit, consequential accounting entries are to be made about the running total of the credit balance and the account input credit entries in RG-23A Part I & Part II respectively. 6- In this case, it is found that all the requirements of the statutory rules are met with by the assessee company, but it is only with reference to accounting and making entries in the RG-23 A - Part II that the dispute has risen. Even though in the entries made under Part I with regard to account of inputs, the entry is made showing a date within six months, but in Part II - the entry number showing the date is beyond six month....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to the goods manufactured prior to 16.3.1995 on which duty had been paid and credit facility thereto has been availed of for the purpose of manufacture of further goods." 9- The matter was again considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune Vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Limited, 1992 (112) ELT 353 (SC), and after relying upon the judgment in the case of Eicher Motors Limited (supra), in paragraphs 17 and 18, the principle has been so crystallized: "17. It is clear from these Rules, as we read them, that a manufacturer obtains credit for the excise duty paid on raw material to be used by him in the production of an excisable product immediately it makes the requisite declaration and obtains an acknow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he benefit of MODVAT credit was denied to the assessee only because of an entry made in RG-23 A Part I & Part II, showing a date beyond six months. In the said case, the principle of law governing grant of MODVAT credit; the requirement of Rules 57A and 57G; the law laid down in the case of Eicher Motors Limited (supra) and Dai Ichi Karkaria Limited (supra) have all been considered and it has been held by the Gujarat High Court in the aforesaid case has held that merely because the entry of date made in Part II is beyond six months, the benefit of MODVAT credit cannot be denied when from all other material available, including the entry made in Part I, it is found that the benefit can be granted to the assessee. 11- We are in full agreem....