TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1944 (for short "the Rules") provides for credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs. (hereinafter referred to as "the Modvat Credit Scheme"). Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57A which was applicable at the relevant time reads as under : "The provisions of this section shall apply to such finished excisable goods (hereinafter referred to as the "final products"), as the Central Government may, by a notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, for the purpose of allowing credit of any duty of excise or the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as may be specified in the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the "specified duty") paid on the goods used in or in relation to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 1986). No credit of duty paid on any material, component parts or(9) finished product shall be allowed under this Rule if credit of duty paid on such material, component parts or finished product has been taken under Rule 57A." 5.Credit under Rule 56A was said to be available on Naphthalene in terms of a Notification dated 29-12-1962. However, on or about 1st March, 1986, a notification bearing No. 177 of 1986 was issued under Rule 57A of the Rules stating that the credit on inputs classifiable under Chapter Heading 27 of the Tariff Act would not be available. The Appellant herein during the period September, 1991 to January, 1992 availed the credit of duty amounting to Rs. 2,46,109/- on 1,04,119 kgs. of Naphthalene falling under C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... having been allowed; the Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment the same was dismissed. 7.Mr. Prakash Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant would submit that wrong mentioning of a provision of law cannot be a bar in claiming relief to which the Appellant was otherwise entitled to and, thus, the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in disallowing the same. 8.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the Appellant having claimed credit in terms of Rule 57A must be held to have availed the same and in that view of the matter, sub-rule (9) of Rule 56A would be applicable in the instant case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule 57A but strangely the Commissioner of Appeals allowed the credit to the petitioner under Rule 56A(8). When the petitioner had claimed benefit under Rule 57A, in our considered view, the petitioner could not have claimed the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 56A(6) particularly when the conditions precedent under Rule 56A were also not satisfied. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have no application." 10.It is now a well-settled principle of law that wrong mentioning of a section would not be a ground to refuse relief to an assessee if he is otherwise entitled thereto. 11.In Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [66 ITR 710], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court opined : ....