2009 (9) TMI 658 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the clause (I) to Rule 57AE of the Rules introduced by the Notification No. 51/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-8-2001 is clarificatory and procedural in nature and has retrospective application - Whether a certificate issued under Rule 57E for differential duty is a valid document when Rule 57E was not in existence during material time - Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessee was entitled to take modvat credit on the basis of the supplementary invoices and certificates under Rules 57E during April 2000 to August 2000 - Under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, which came into force with effect from 14-5-2003 by substitution of the earlier provision by Act No. 32 of 2003, straight away, a provision for an appeal has been made in the statute from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after 1st July 2003, appellant submits that the issue involved in this case is covered against the revenue in the case of Home Ashok Leyland Limited, (2007 -TMI - 47977 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), reference case petition is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 57AE of the Central Excise Rules regarding retrospective application.
2. Validity of a certificate issued under Rule 57E for differential duty.
3. Entitlement to take modvat credit based on supplementary invoices and certificates under Rules 57E during a specific period.
4. Maintainability of a reference case petition under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought clarification on whether the clause (I) to Rule 57AE introduced by a specific notification is clarificatory and procedural with retrospective application. The Court noted the appeal provision under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that a reference case petition can be maintained for orders passed by the Tribunal before 1st July 2003. However, since the impugned order was subsequent to this date, the reference case could not be sustained both statutorily and factually. The judgment referenced a previous case that favored the revenue, leading to the dismissal of the reference case petition.

2. The issue of the validity of a certificate issued under Rule 57E for differential duty when the rule was not in existence during the relevant period was raised. The Court highlighted the statutory timeline for appeals under the Central Excise Act, specifying that orders post-1st July 2003 do not qualify for reference case petitions. Furthermore, the counsel acknowledged a precedent where a similar issue was decided against the revenue, supporting the dismissal of the petition.

3. Regarding the entitlement to modvat credit based on supplementary invoices and certificates under Rules 57E during a specific timeframe, the Court reiterated the limitation on maintaining reference case petitions for orders passed post-1st July 2003. The counsel's admission of a precedent unfavorable to the revenue further strengthened the decision to dismiss the reference case petition due to statutory and factual reasons.

4. The judgment extensively discussed the statutory provisions governing the maintainability of reference case petitions under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the temporal limitation for such petitions. The Court's reliance on a previous case that ruled against the revenue, coupled with the acknowledgment by the appellant's counsel, solidified the dismissal of the reference case petition based on both legal and factual grounds.