9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (8) TMI 94 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat - Inputs - Payment of duty by supplier-manufacturer pursuant to adjudication of evasion - MRL had cleared kerosene during the period 1-3-1994 to 2-7-96 without paying full duty due by suppression of material facts. MRL paid the differential duty consequent on adjudication of allegation of evasion of duty on kerosene during 1999. MRL was issued a 57E certificate for an amount of Rs. 28, 11, 630/- on 25-11-1999. TPL took credit of the above amount on 20-1-2000. The certificate in question was withdrawn by the jurisdictional range Superintendent who had issued the same. After due process of law the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise B Division Chennai passed an order denying TPL credit to the extent of Rs. 19, 45, 363/- paid on adjudication of the offence of removal of kerosene by suppression of facts by MRL. - held that - Rule 57E(3) barred availment of the differential credit by the buyer of inputs - credit denied.
Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit based on Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Interpretation of Rule 57E(3) and its retrospective application. 3. Judicial precedents regarding Modvat credit and procedural provisions. Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of Modvat credit based on Rule 57E The case involved M/s. Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd. (TPL) availing Modvat credit based on a certificate issued under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER) for the duty paid by M/s. Madras Refineries Limited (MRL) on clearances of kerosene. The Range Officer withdrew the certificate, leading to a Show Cause Notice and subsequent denial of credit by the original authority. The denial was based on the grounds of short payment by MRL due to suppression of facts. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial partially, allowing only a balance amount of credit. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 57E and the eligibility of TPL for Modvat credit. Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 57E(3) and its retrospective application The crux of the argument was the introduction of sub-rule (3) of Rule 57E on 1-3-1997, which prohibited the issuance of certificates in cases of duty recovery due to fraud, collusion, or suppression of facts. The appellant contended that since the credit was based on clearances before 1-3-1997, the denial under Rule 57E(3) was not applicable. Judicial authorities were cited to support the argument that Rule 57E was procedural and did not affect the substantive right of claiming Modvat credit. The Tribunal analyzed the retrospective application of Rule 57E(3) in light of relevant legal precedents and upheld the denial of credit based on the introduction of the sub-rule in 1997. Issue 3: Judicial precedents regarding Modvat credit and procedural provisions Various judicial precedents were cited during the proceedings to support both the appellant's and respondent's arguments. Cases such as CCE v. R.H. Padmalochini and CCE, Madras v. Home Ashokleyland Ltd. highlighted the substantive right to claim Modvat credit under Rule 57A and the procedural nature of Rule 57E. The Tribunal referenced these cases to establish the distinction between the right to credit and the procedural requirements under Rule 57E. Additionally, the Tribunal relied on judgments like Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Indore and National Engineering Industries v. CCE to emphasize the prospective application of procedural amendments and the need to apply the law prevailing at the relevant time. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of Modvat credit to TPL based on Rule 57E(3) and the retrospective application of the sub-rule introduced in 1997. The decision was grounded in the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and supported by judicial precedents regarding Modvat credit and procedural requirements under the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
|
