TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough the impugned order, the appeal memorandum and the submissions of the appellant during personal hearing. The appellant cannot take the transitional credit suo motu without taking the department into confidence. In fact, in view of the amendment to Rule 57H inserted vide Notification No. 4/94-CE(NT), dated 1-3-94, the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to allow the credit subject to the provisions incorporated in Rule 57H(1) vide the aforesaid Notification. Since the Asstt. Commissioner was not approached, the transitional credit could not be allowed as per the aforesaid Rule. Thus, I find nothing wrong or illegal in the impugned order disallowing such credit. 9. The appeal is, therefore, disallowed the stay petition is disposed of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dutiable final products, the Appellant became eligible to avail Modvat Credit of the Duty paid on the input materials. The Appellant took transitional Modvat Credit of Rs. 5,50,39,891.88 (Rupees five crores fifty lakhs thirty-nine thousand eight hundred ninety-one and paise eighty-eight) in its RG-23A, Part-II in respect of the duty-paid inputs used in the manufacture of final products lying in stock on March 1, 1994. On 28-3-94, the Appellant filed declaration under Rule 57G(1) before the proper Officer. On 31-3-94, the Appellant availed transitional Modvat Credit in respect of duty-paid inputs received in the factory between March 1, 1994 and March 30, 1994, amounting to Rs. 3,20,91,699.00 (Rupees three crores twenty lakhs ninety-one thou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it under Rule 57H(1) could be taken by the manufacturer from the date of obtaining acknowledgement of declaration under Rule 57G of the said Rules. In the instant case, such a declaration under Rule 57G was filed by the Appellant on March 28, 1994, which was duly acknowledged by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on March 30, 1994. Hence, the MODVAT Credit taken on March 31, 1994, on inputs received between March 1, 1994 and March 30, 1994, amounting to Rs. 3,20,91,699.00 (Rupees three crores twenty lakhs ninety-one thousand six hundred and ninety-nine), was legal, valid and proper and the contrary finding of the Assistant Commissioner, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), is on the face of it erroneous, untenable and bad. 6. He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had rightly passed the Order. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned Order should be upheld. 9. Repelling this argument, the learned Counsel submitted that Revenue was relying on the aforesaid piece-meal evidence at Annexure-VI appearing at pages 59-60 of the paper book, but that was a mere correspondence while the entire report of the Chartered Accountant available at pages 59-60 should be read to appreciate that there was no unjust Credit taken by the Appellant, and when it was noticed that there was technical irregularity in availing of the Modvat Credit, that was reversed in March, 1995. The Appellant was always fair enough to state before the Authorities below about its mod us operandi. There was no fact suppressed at any poin....