2008 (1) TMI 705 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Denial of credit for inputs sent to job workers, time period for taking duty credit under Rule 56G (5), applicability of rule amendments, disputed receipts of intermediate goods, change of procedure, consequential relief, change of cause title, disposal of cross-objection.

Analysis:
The Appellants were denied credit for inputs sent to job workers due to not taking duty credit within the specified six-month period under Rule 56G (5). The Appellants argued that the rule amendment introducing the time period was on 29-6-1995 and should not apply to goods sent before that date. They further contended that a transitory period existed after the rule change, causing delays in taking credit until receiving intermediate goods. The consultant for the Appellants highlighted subsequent amendments extending the period to nine months for direct movement of goods to job workers, acknowledging the difficulty in meeting the initial six-month requirement.

Upon hearing both sides and assessing the facts, the Tribunal acknowledged that some goods were received before the rule change and others shortly after, warranting a lenient approach to implementing the new procedure. Given the undisputed payment of duty, material utilization, and documentation, the Tribunal allowed the credit for disputed receipts of intermediate goods from job workers. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Additionally, the Tribunal permitted the Appellants' Miscellaneous Application for changing the cause title, supported by documentary evidence of the company's name change, and disposed of the Department's Cross-Objection.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the Appellants by considering the timing of goods receipt in relation to the rule change, emphasizing the importance of payment, material use, and documentation in granting the disputed credit. The ruling demonstrated a balanced approach to the transitional period, ensuring fairness in applying the amended procedures and providing necessary relief to the Appellants.