2005 (5) TMI 194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of price affected on the inputs manufacturer, they paid differential duty of Rs. 8,40,000/- in their PLA on 8-6-95. Inasmuch as the appellants were entitled to take the Modvat credit of the differential duty paid by Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd., the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a certificate under the provisions of Rule 57E on 8-6-95. The said certificate was not received by the noticee-company and as such, they requested for issuance of another certificate. Subsequently, concerned officer issued a certificate dated 20-7-96 under the provisions of Rule 57E in lieu of the earlier certificate, on the basis of which the appellants availed the credit thereafter. Revenue entertained a view that inasmuch as 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

....ertificate issued under Rule 57E. The reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) that Rule 57G is the core provision, which lays down the procedure for availment of credit as well as connected procedural matters and inasmuch as the documents forming basis of availment of credit as spelt out in the said Rule prescribing a time limit within which the manufacturer must take credit in his books of accounts will also apply to Rule 57E, does not appeal to me. The decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Utkal Asbestos Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar, reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 235 (Tri.) has observed in Para 16 of its judgment as under :- "Out of the 'succeeding rule's is Rule 57E which contains a provision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refunded to him. It is by itself a complete Rule and is not dependent for its existence to other Modvat Rules. As such, I am of the view that the bar introduced in the provisions of Rule 57G for taking the credit within a period of six months from the date of issuance of duty paying documents cannot be lifted from the provisions of that Rule and apply to Rule 57E. 4. Further, the facts of the instant case are peculiar inasmuch as admittedly the original certificate issued by the Superintendent as regards the payment of differential duty was not received by the appellants and a new certificate was issued subsequently in lieu of the earlier, when the appellants brought the facts of non-receipt to the notice of the Superintendent. 5. The....