TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les, 1944 (CER) to M/s. Madras Refineries Limited (MRL). The certificate pertained to differential duty paid by MRL on clearances of kerosene to TPL made during the period 1-3-1994 to 31-7-1998. The Range Officer withdrew the certificate vide his letter dated 4-2-2000. A Show Cause Notice was issued to TPL, adjudicating which the original authority disallowed the credit to the extent of Rs. 19,45,363/- on the ground that MRL had short paid the said amount on clearances of kerosene to TPL by suppression of facts. He allowed balance amount of credit of Rs. 8,66,267/-. The original authority held that as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 57E of CER, certificate under Rule 57E was not to be issued in cases where the additional amount of duty became reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attach new disability in respect of past transactions or consideration already passed. (emphasis supplied)" Ld. Counsel pleaded that sub-rule (3) of Rule 57E prohibiting issue of 57E Certificate where the short levy or non-levy had originally occurred owing to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of fact was enacted on 1-3-1997 and therefore, credit earned on clearances of inputs prior to 1-3-1997 could not be denied invoking Rule 57E(3) of the CER. The ld. Counsel also relied on the following judicial authorities. (a) CCE, Coimbatore v. R.H. Padmalochini [2008 (222) E.L.T. 110 (Tri.-Chennai)] In this case the Tribunal held that credit of duty paid on inputs received by a manufacturer provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to deny the credit relatable to inputs clandestinely removed by a manufacturer prior to 1-3-97 and in respect of which certificate was issued in December, 1995 and also withdrawn by the Range Officer in the same month.) (d) Bell Ceramics Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara [2003 (153) E.L.T. 333 (Tri.-Mum)] In this case facts were that differential duty was paid by manufacturer-supplier in 1996. After prolonged dispute Rule 57E certificate was given in the year 2000. The Tribunal held that the certificate was valid to avail differential duty credit. It was held that 57E certificate had to be given in a case where initially inputs had been cleared under Chapter X and assessee had paid duty who used the inputs other than for the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs from the date, of issue of the invoice for availing credit. The Court held that the introduction of time limit did not take away any vested right. It only fixed a time Limit within which the said right was to be enforced. Hence the amendment operated prospectively. The apex Court rejected the contention of the appellant therein to the effect that the amendment to Rule 57G of CER had no retrospective effect. The Apex Court dismissed the appeal and held that the Rule operated prospectively. In National Engineering Industries v. CCE [2005 (188) E.L.T. 471 (S.C.)], the apex Court had held in the context of applicability of Section 11B of the Act that the law prevailing when the refund claim was taken up had to be applied. This finding reject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 57E was introduced in the statute book. This sub-rule reads as follows : (3)The provisions of sub-rule (2) shall not apply in cases where the additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacturer or importer of inputs on account of any short levy or non-levy by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mis­statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty." 6. We find that in Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Indore (supra), the Apex Court had found that amendment to Rule 57G of CER prescribing the time limit of six months of the date of issue of duty paying document on 29-6-1995 was prospective. The amendment had introduced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not impressed with the argument of the ld. Counsel that the communication of the Range Superintendent issuing or cancelling the 57E certificate is a quasi-judicial act and, to cancel the certificate, the competent authority had to follow the review proceedings in terms of Section 35 of the Act. If this interpretation is to be accepted, any communication of decision or order of a superior authority by the Range Superintendent cannot be altered without following the procedure as suggested by the appellants, even though, the communication does not involve judicial decision on any issue. In our decision in CCE v. R.H. Padmalochini (supra), relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 178 (S.C) we had held that Rule 57A provid....