TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (7) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of duty of excise or the additional duty paid on the goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. The credit so allowed is to be utilised towards payment of duty of excise leviable on the final product. Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules provides that the manufacturer can take credit in respect of the inputs received under the duty paying documents. Prior to 29-6-1995 the manufacturer who receives the inputs under the cover of valid duty paying documents had the freedom to take the credit without any limitation of time under Rule 57G. Rule 57G was amended by Notification No. 8/95-C.E.(N.T.), dated 25-6-1995 and a proviso was introduced in the rule to the effect that no credit is to be taken after six months from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned in the present notification. Therefore, the credit cannot be denied on the documents issued prior to 29-6-1995 on the ground that credit is taken after six months. 5.The contention of the Revenue is that the notification is prospective in nature as the Revenue is not denying the benefit of credit taken before 29-6-1995 on the ground that the credit was taken after six months from the issue of the documents. In this situation, we are of the view that amendment introduced by the Notification No. 28/95-C.E.(N.T.), dated 29-5-1995 is prospective in nature as Revenue is not denying the credit taken on the condition imposed by notification prior to the date of amendment. 6.It is also the contention of the appellant that on the introduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... right to a manufacturer. For this, appellant relies upon the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 1999 (30) RLT 829 (S.C.). 9.Opposing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, the contention of the Revenue is that amendment to Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules clearly provides that manufacturer shall not take credit after six months of the date of issue of any document. The contention of the Revenue is that the vested right for Modvat credit crystallise in favour of the manufacturer only when he takes the credit in his RG 23A Part-II Account and produces the documents for defacement in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms, reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) and in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.) held that authorities functioning under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act. If the proceedings are taken under the Act by the department, the provisions of limitation, prescribed in the Act will prevail. We find no such provisions under the Central Excise Act or under the Rules where the Tribunal can issue such directions as given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Harnam Singh (Supra). Therefore there is no merit in this plea of the appellants. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ca....