2003 (6) TMI 416 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disputed Modvat credit availed by the assessee.
2. Commissioner's rejection of Modvat credit based on input document dates.
3. Applicability of Rule 57G(2A) in allowing Modvat credit.
4. Compliance with Modvat rules regarding availing credit within six months.
5. Decision on appeals filed by both the party and revenue.

Issue 1: Disputed Modvat credit availed by the assessee
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing parts of Motor Vehicles, availed Modvat credit under Rule 57A/Q. The Commissioner disallowed credit of Rs. 18,072/- and Rs. 1,00,362/- based on invoice dates. The assessee appealed against this decision.

Issue 2: Commissioner's rejection of Modvat credit based on input document dates
The Commissioner rejected Modvat credit on the grounds that the input document dates did not align with the credit availed dates. The Commissioner denied credit for Appeal No. 203/2000 (M-II) but allowed credit for Appeal No. 204/2000 (M-II) based on Rule 57G(2A) applicability during the period.

Issue 3: Applicability of Rule 57G(2A) in allowing Modvat credit
The Commissioner's decision to allow Modvat credit for Appeal No. 204/2000 (M-II) was based on the applicability of Rule 57G(2A) during the relevant period. This rule governed the grant of credit within the specified time frame, leading to the allowance of credit in this instance.

Issue 4: Compliance with Modvat rules regarding availing credit within six months
The assessee argued that they had availed the credit within six months as per records and Circular No. 275/109/96-CX. They provided evidence of taking credit in RG 23A, Part-I within the stipulated time frame, which was confirmed by the Commissioner. The compliance with the six-month rule was crucial in determining the regularity of credit availed.

Issue 5: Decision on appeals filed by both the party and revenue
The Tribunal upheld the assessee's appeal, citing compliance with the Board's circular and confirming the regularity of credit availed within six months. On the other hand, the Revenue's appeal was rejected as the Commissioner's order granting Modvat credit was found to be in accordance with the law and rules applicable during the period. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the party's appeal allowed and the Revenue's appeal rejected.