1996 (2) TMI 464 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for higher notional Modvat credit beyond six months.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the denial of Higher Notional Credit claimed beyond six months. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing HDPE/PP woven fabrics sacks, procured HDPE and claimed Modvat credit on the inputs. The Department contended that the higher notional credit of duty was inadmissible as it was claimed beyond six months. The Advocate for the appellants argued that there is no time-limit for claiming Modvat credit of duty under the scheme. He cited various Tribunal judgments supporting the view that there is no limitation for claiming Modvat credit. The Advocate emphasized that once GP 1 showing the credit of duty is submitted to the Department, the notional higher credit claimed on the strength of the gate pass should not be subject to any limitation. He relied on judgments like Premier Cables Company Limited, Veekay General Industries, and HCL to support his contention. The Advocate concluded that there is no specific provision under Modvat Rules for claiming credit of duty. On the other hand, the JDR argued that the claim for Modvat credit must be made within a reasonable time, as held in previous Tribunal cases.

The Tribunal examined whether there is a limitation on claiming Modvat credit of duty. It was observed that there is no specific stipulation in the Modvat Rules regarding the time limit for claiming Modvat credit. The appellants had claimed normal Modvat credit by submitting relevant gate passes to the authorities, showing that the manufacturer of the inputs enjoyed the benefit of a specific notification. Therefore, anyone purchasing inputs from a small-scale industrial unit under the notification was entitled to higher notional credit. The Tribunal held that the claim for higher notional Modvat credit was established when GP-1 was submitted to the Department while filing RT-12 returns, making any limitation inapplicable in this case. The Tribunal noted its consistent stance that in the absence of a specific limitation in the Modvat Rules, Modvat credit of duty can be taken without any restriction.

Regarding the contention that 'reasonable time' necessarily means six months, the Tribunal found that since the claim was already established by submitting relevant GP-1 with RT-12 returns, the six-month limitation would not apply in this scenario. Considering the discussions and case laws cited, the Tribunal concluded that the limitation was not applicable in the circumstances of the case and in line with its consistent view. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.