2001 (10) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duty on the dutiable final products in terms of Rule 57-S of the Rules and subject to fulfilment of conditions thereunder and since in the instant case the appellants were manufacturing and clearing/transport of vehicles falling under Heading 8704 of CETA, 1985 exempt under Notification 162/86 from April 1995 onwards, the capital goods, mentioned herein above, which were already installed/put into use in the registered premises had been used for the manufacture of final products on which no duty payment was made as the appellants had admitted that they were not manufacturing any final products which were chargeable to duty. The above said credit was proposed to be denied in terms of Rule 57U. 2.1 The Assistant Collector disallowed the cred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, the findings of the Assistant Commissioner in the adjudication order, the grounds of appeal and the written and oral submissions made at the time of Personal Hearing. Rule 57Q as it stood during August 1995 stipulated that credit of duty paid on capital goods used by the manufacturer in his factory, can be utilized towards payment of duty of excise leviable on the final product. At the time of receipt and installation of the subject goods the appellants were not at all manufacturing any dutiable excisable goods. The said capital goods, installed in factory during August 1995 were used exclusively for the manufacture of exempted goods. It is only during September 1996 that the subject capital goods were utilized for the first time in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r officer should serve notice to the manufacturer who has taken the credit why such credit should not be disallowed. In this case, the manufacturer took credit erroneously, as the credit could not be utilized, in term of Rule 57Q. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice issued in terms of Rule 57U, which has been upheld as the provisions of Rule 57Q were not fulfilled as brought out in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, on this ground also the order of the Assistant Commissioner is correct, proper and legal and does not require any interference." The present appeal is against this order of Commissioner (Appeals). 3. After hearing both sides and considering the submissions, I find : - (a) The credit was availed on 23-5-1995 and 25-7-1998 in Part ....