2011 (6) TMI 473 - AT - Central Excise

Deemed Credit - Whether the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Rule 9A as it stood on amendment which was introduced on 12th May 2003 read with Notification No. 28/2003-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1st April 2003 and Notification No. 43/2003-C.E. (N.T.) dated 12th May 2003 as well as Notification No. 52/2003-C.E. (N.T.) dated 6th June 2003 - appellants under their letter informed that they had taken deemed credit on the closing stock of finished goods and they had availed the said credit in terms of Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 - appellants contention was that the benefit of the amended provisions under Notification dated 12th May 2003 was not available retrospectively - Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) holding that such declaration ought to have been filed before May 2003 in terms of Notification dated 12th May 2003 if at all the appellants wanted to file declaration for availing benefit by the amended provisions - authority having power to prescribe a limitation for filing the declaration and having extended such limitation period it was not within the jurisdiction of adjudicating authority to restrict the limitation Order set aside and appeal is accordingly allowed with consequential relief appellants are entitled for the benefit of Rule 9A

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of benefit under Rule 9A as per relevant notifications.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi arose from a Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing the appellants' appeal against the disallowance of credit amounting to Rs. 20,40,713/- by the Additional Commissioner, Gurgaon. The issue revolved around the appellants' entitlement to the benefit of Rule 9A post-amendment introduced on 12th May, 2003, along with related notifications (28/2003-C.E. (N.T.), 1/4/2003, 43/2003-C.E. (N.T.), and 52/2003-C.E. (N.T.)).

The appellants, engaged in manufacturing readymade garments, had informed the Department about deemed credit on closing stock of finished goods as of 31st March, 2003. Subsequent disclosures and disputes led to a show-cause notice, contested by the appellants, resulting in the present appeal.

The appellants argued that the amendments to Rule 9A extended the benefit to products not covered initially, and they had complied with all requirements to avail the benefit. They cited the British Airways PLC case to support their stance on the liberal interpretation of Rule 9A. In contrast, the Department contended that the amended Rule came into force on 12th May, 2003, and strict compliance was necessary, referring to the Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. and Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. cases.

The Tribunal analyzed the amendments to Rule 9A and related notifications, emphasizing that the benefit was extended to products not covered initially. It highlighted that the date for availing the benefit remained unchanged from before March 2003, despite amendments. The Tribunal distinguished the case from those cited by the Department, emphasizing the specific requirements and limitations in the present matter.

Regarding the declarations filed by the appellants, the Tribunal noted that the Department did not dispute the filings but raised concerns about retrospective availability of benefits. It clarified that the extended deadlines for filing declarations under subsequent notifications should be considered, and the appellants should not be denied the right to file declarations based on the initial notification dates.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable, set it aside, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing the appellants' entitlement to the benefit under Rule 9A based on the amendments and compliance with statutory provisions.

This comprehensive analysis addresses the issues involved in the judgment, covering the legal arguments, interpretations of relevant rules and notifications, and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellants.